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

48–116 2009

HEARING ON CLEARING THE DISABILITY BACKLOG: 

GIVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

THE RESOURCES IT NEEDS TO PROVIDE 

THE BENEFITS WORKERS HAVE EARNED 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

APRIL 23, 2008 

Serial 110–79 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means 

( 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

ii 

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York, Chairman 

FORTNEY PETE STARK, California 

SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan 

JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington 

JOHN LEWIS, Georgia 

RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts 

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

XAVIER BECERRA, California 

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas 

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota 

STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio 

MIKE THOMPSON, California 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

RON KIND, Wisconsin 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

KENDRICK MEEK, Florida 

ALLYSON Y. SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama 

JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana 

WALLY HERGER, California 

DAVE CAMP, Michigan 

JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas 

PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri 

RON LEWIS, Kentucky 

KEVIN BRADY, Texas 

THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York 

PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin 

ERIC CANTOR, Virginia 

JOHN LINDER, Georgia 

DEVIN NUNES, California 

PAT TIBERI, Ohio 

JON PORTER, Nevada 

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. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Advisory of April 16, 2008, announcing the hearing ............................................ 2 

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, Social Security Administration ........................................................................................................................ 9 

Sylvester J. Schieber, Chairman, Social Security Advisory Board ...................... 62 

Marty Ford, Co-Chair, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force ..................................................................................................... 69 

Mara Mayor, Member, AARP Board of Directors, Bethesda, Maryland ............. 91 

Witold Skwierczynski, President of the American Federation of government 

Employees National Council of Social Security Field Operations Locals, 

Baltimore, Maryland ............................................................................................ 102 

The Honorable Frederick Waitsman, administrative law judge, Social Security 

Administration, and Vice Chair, Social Security section of the Federal Bar 

Association, Atlanta, Georgia .............................................................................. 119 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

America’s Health Insurance Plans, Statement ..................................................... 189 

American Bar Association, Statement ................................................................... 192 

Association of Administrative Law Judges, Statement ........................................

Barbara Gay, Statement ......................................................................................... 193 

Colleen M. Kelley, Statement ................................................................................. 194 

Connie Plemmons, Statement ................................................................................. 198 

David A. Hansell, Statement .................................................................................. 198 

Harry Wanous, Statement ...................................................................................... 200 

James F. Allsup, Statement .................................................................................... 200 

Linda Fullerton, Statement .................................................................................... 202 

National Association of Disability Representatives, Statement .......................... 214 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty, Statement ........................... 217 

Service Employees International Union, Statement ............................................. 222 

The American Civil Liberties Union, Statement ................................................... 222 

The Federal Managers Association, Statement ..................................................... 225 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

(1) 

HEARING ON CLEARING THE DISABILITY 

BACKLOG: GIVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION THE RESOURCES IT 

NEEDS TO PROVIDE THE BENEFITS WORKERS HAVE EARNED 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 23, 2008 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in room 

1100, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Charles B. Rangel 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:] 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

2 

ADVISORY 

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: (202) 225–9263 

April 16, 2008 

FC—21 

Chairman Rangel Announces a Hearing on 

Clearing the Disability Backlog—Giving the Social 

Security Administration the Resources It Needs to 

Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned 

House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel today announced that the Committee will hold a hearing on the Social Security Administration’s (SSA’s) large backlog in disability claims and other declines in service to the 

public resulting from years of underfunding of the agency’s administrative expenses. 

The hearing will take place on Wednesday, April 23, 2008 in the main Committee 

hearing room, 1100 Longworth House Office Building, beginning at 10:00 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 workload has grown significantly due to the aging of the 

population and new responsibilities stemming from Medicare and homeland security 

legislation. Despite a productivity increase of more than 15 percent since 2001, the 

administrative funding SSA has received has been well below the level needed to 

keep up with this growing workload. From Fiscal Year (FY) 1998 through FY 2007, 

SSA received a cumulative total of $1.3 billion less than was requested by the President, and $4.6 billion less than the Commissioner’s own budget for the agency. 

As a result, by the end of calendar year 2007, SSA staffing had dropped to almost 

the level in 1972—before the start of the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program—even though SSA’s beneficiary population has nearly doubled since that time. 

Due to the combination of rising claims as the baby boom generation ages and 

prolonged underfunding, Social Security and SSI disability claims backlogs have 

reached unprecedented levels. More than 1.3 million applicants for disability benefits are currently awaiting a decision on their claim, and total waiting times often 

extend into years. In addition, as SSA tries to address the backlog crisis, the agency 

is forced to divert its limited resources away from its day-to-day operations in field 

offices and payment processing centers in order to try to manage the disability backlog. The result is an increase in long lines, delays, busy signals, and unanswered 

telephones, and growing concern about closures and consolidations of local field offices. Resource shortages have also forced the agency to cut back on program integrity activities, even though such activities have been demonstrated to generate considerable savings to the Trust Fund. 

Under the President’s FY 2009 proposed budget, the agency would be able to 

make modest progress toward addressing the disability claims backlog, but service 

in the field would continue to decline. Moreover, proposals to assign additional 

workloads to SSA, such as expanding SSA’s role in verifying the work-authorization 

status of employees, would, if enacted and not funded in full each year, force SSA 

to shift scarce resources away from its core functions to carry out these new workloads. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

3 

In announcing the hearing, Chairman Rangel said, ‘‘We are alarmed by the deterioration in service to our constituents and the suffering of those who 

must wait years to receive benefits they desperately need. Despite its wellearned reputation for being a can-do agency, the Social Security Administration simply cannot do its job without adequate funding. We have been 

working on a bipartisan basis to address this problem, and will continue 

to do so until the disability claims backlog is eliminated and SSA’s capacity 

to provide high quality service to the public is restored.’’ 

FOCUS OF THE HEARING: 

This hearing will focus on SSA’s large backlog of disability claims, its impact on 

applicants with severe disabilities who are awaiting a decision on their claim, and 

SSA’s plan to reduce the backlog. It will also focus on the role of SSA resource shortages in the growth of the backlog; other effects of these shortages, including the impact on service in local field offices, telephone service, and SSA’s ability to conduct 

program integrity activities; and the need for increased administrative funding in 

FY 2009 to address these problems. 

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 ‘‘110th Congress’’ from the menu entitled, 

‘‘Committee Hearings’’ (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=18). 

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, email and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect 

document to the email address provided, in compliance with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Wednesday, May 7, 2008. 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 submitters 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. 

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

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

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 availmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

4 

ability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above. 

f 

Chairman RANGEL. We regret that we’re starting late, but this 

is a very unusual type of hearing, because most of the work that 

should be done by the Congress in identifying the problem has already been done. So, it’s not a Republican or a Democratic initiative; it’s a question of how many Americans have played by the 

rules, paid their dues, have become disabled, and their Government, for whatever reason, is unable to provide the services that 

belong to them. 

Because there are so many people, and the resources are so limited by the Social Security Administration, we have lawyers now 

making appeal to those people that have waited 2 and 3 and 4 

years, where they claim that as lawyers they can do better than 

the U.S. Congress. 

So people are being victimized by believing in their government, 

and of course in believing that they can for outside assisted. 

In addition to that, a lot of Members for honorable reasons believe that the Social Security system can and should be used for 

other purposes because they have been so effective in getting in the 

past, that is, what people deserve from the Social Security system, 

survivor system, that they’re going to expand it. That can only 

make matters worse. 

So I just want the Ranking Member to know that in meeting 

with Chairman Bachus this morning we all are trying to find creative ways to get this agricultural thing going. If we come up with 

anything, then we would be able to present it to you, because 

you’ve played such an important role, not only with Republicans in 

the House, not only in the conference, but with the President, since 

for some reason you have a much better working relationship with 

him than I do. 

But I won’t have to worry about that too long. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman RANGEL. Having said that, if the Committee would 

permit, what I would like to do is to yield to Mr. McNulty and then 

to Dr. McDermott. At some point in the hearing I would ask for 

them to chair that part while I’m away, and then hope that you 

might designate the Ranking Members on the Social Security, the 

family income, because they have really—Mr. Johnson and Mr. 

Weller have worked so hard in the national good. We don’t have 

to—that is, Mr. McCrery and I don’t have to tell you that where 

we disagree we don’t think it’s helpful to let the whole Congress 

and country know it; but I do believe that this is one of the subjects 

that we do not have any problem in recognizing the severity of 

what is hitting so many Americans who deserve better service than 

they’re getting. 

So I’d like to yield to you for whatever statement you’d want to 

make. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

For more than 70 years, Social Security has provided essential 

income support for literally hundreds of millions of workers and 

families. In 2007 alone nearly 613 billion was provided to more 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

5 

than 53 million Americans in the form of retirement, survivors’ disability, and Supplemental Security Income benefits. 

Through a national network of Social Security field and hearing 

offices and state disability determination offices, over 74,000 staff 

serve the public every day through work that includes processing 

claims, issuing Social Security number cards, crediting earnings 

records, and educating the public. We recognize the hard work of 

these dedicated professionals. 

Regrettably, the Agency’s service to the public has suffered in recent years. This is due in large part to limited funding at a time 

of increasing workloads, those increasing workloads, of course, due 

primarily to the aging of the baby boomers. There are longer lines 

at local offices, more busy signals received by callers to Social Security’s 800 number, and a hearing backlog so deep, the average waiting time for a decision is over 16 months. 

Commissioner Astrue has said, ‘‘It is a moral imperative to reduce the disability backlogs.’’ I couldn’t agree more, and I’m sure 

the Chairman also agrees. 

Since his arrival, Commissioner Astrue has made addressing disability backlogs his number one priority. As he will tell us today, 

he has accelerated or implemented multiple initiatives to decrease 

the backlog and improve public service. 

Congress has begun stepping up to the plate as well. This year 

for the first time in 15 years, Congress has appropriated more than 

the President’s budget request for the Social Security Administration (SSA), exceeding that request by close to $150 million. I understand Commissioner Astrue was able to get into the 2009 budget 

request to the President a 6-percent increase of this year’s budget, 

so that’s certainly an encouraging development. 

I think part of the credit for this increase in the budget goes certainly to the bipartisan work of our two Subcommittee chairmen, 

Mike McNulty and Sam Johnson, among others on the Committee. 

Unfortunately, though, administrative funding alone can’t solve 

Social Security’s service delivery and fiscal challenges. We already 

face what some would call a fiscal train wreck in coming decades, 

when the projected costs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security 

impose unbearable burdens on future generations. Those projections are reality today for the Social Security disability program. 

Its cost—and remember the Social Security disability program is 

funded by a specific payroll tax—we often lump together the survivors’ and the disability program, but there is a separate trust 

fund for the disability program, and for the last 3 years the outgo 

has been more than the income from the payroll tax dedicated to 

the disability program. 

Solving all of the challenges will require Members from both parties to come together to conduct a fundamental examination of the 

challenges and opportunities facing Social Security programs. 

Every day of delay means fewer choices, greater burdens on future 

generations. I think we all agree that our children and grandchildren deserve better than continued delay. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman RANGEL. I’d like to yield to Mr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are 

750,000 Americans for whom today’s hearing is a matter of grave 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

6 

urgency. That’s how many disability claims are pending before the 

Social Security Administration. The backlog is more than double 

what it was in the year 2000. 

While the blame rests with the administration, it’s not the Social 

Security Administration I’m talking about. Year in and year out 

the line of disabled Americans applying for help has grown longer, 

while the Social Security budget has been short-changed. Today 

three-quarters of a million Americans are waiting for Congress to 

do the obvious, find a solution. We’re taking steps to fix this, because these disabled Americans deserve nothing better. 

The backlog in processing disability claims is a burden and a 

barrier for disabled individuals who are waiting for critical cash assistance and healthcare coverage. Perhaps no group faces a greater 

challenge as a result of these backlogs, than those who are applying for SSI. 

The SSI Program is often referred to as the ‘‘safety net of last 

resort for the disabled and the elderly.’’ It provides modest cash assistance the nearly 6 million disabled individuals who have very 

modest incomes and limited or no resources. The average monthly 

benefit for a disabled individual is $471, which is used to meet 

basic necessities, such as food, clothing, and shelter. 

Additionally, SSI beneficiaries are generally eligible for 

healthcare coverage once they get on the program through Medicaid. SSI applicants—remember these people have been waiting 

for two or 3 years with no healthcare benefits; they have to get on 

the program before they’re eligible for Medicaid. They’re much 

more vulnerable than most. They are being forced to wait for years 

when many don’t have sufficient resources to buy food for the next 

few weeks. 

Making matters worse, these people often don’t have healthcare 

access, as I said, to healthcare at all. 

For the Social Security Administration, the backlog is making it 

more difficult to adequately staff field offices with employees who 

can address the other critical needs, as well as the routine changes 

affecting beneficiaries, like changes in monthly income that directly 

affect the monthly benefit up or down. 

In other words, the current backlog is a lose-lose for everybody. 

Committing ourselves to securing full funding for Social Security 

Administration administrative budget is the right thing to do for 

the disabled individuals who need critical assistance now, and it’s 

the right thing to do for the Social Security Administration. 

We know that nearly 80 million baby boomers will come knocking on our door in the next 20 years. As it stands now, the answer 

will be ‘‘Go to the end of the line.’’ It is a long line. That’s not acceptable either to them or the 750,000 disabled Americans waiting 

in line today. 

I think you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Chairman RANGEL. Mr. Johnson, who has really done great 

work with Mr. McNulty, I’d like to yield to you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your recognition, and thank you for holding this important hearing. 

Last year, Subcommittee Chairman McNulty and I successfully 

worked together to send the Social Security Administration some 

additional funding. The whole Committee supported that. It needs 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

7 

to better serve the American people. This funding won’t solve all 

of Social Security’s challenges, but it’s a good first step. 

Many of those trying to receive benefits are angry. They want a 

process they can understand, and that’s fair and that gives them 

the answers in a reasonable amount of time. That just isn’t happening today. Commissioner Mike Astrue knows that, and he and 

his staff have been working hard to put into action needed changes. 

As we will hear, these efforts not only include added staff but 

also streamlining the application process, expanding the use of 

technology and developing new decisionmaking tools to help reduce 

processing time, and insure the right decision is made as soon as 

possible. 

Implementing needed change over the short term is necessary; 

however, as Ranking Member McCrery rightly points our or will 

point out, we cannot continue to ignore the greater challenges of 

facing Social Security today. 

As we were recently reminded by the Social Security trustees, 

long-term program costs cannot be sustained without change. Even 

more pressing are the immediate fiscal challenges facing the disability program. We need to take action, and the sooner we get to 

work the better. We should begin by finding ways to make disability determinations less complex, less costly, and easier for the 

public to understand. 

I believe we can achieve this goal while still insuring accuracy 

and fairness. It won’t be easy to find the answers, but it’s got to 

be done. Those who are unable to work are counting on us to secure Social Security’s vital safety net. All Americans are counting 

on us to insure their hard-earned tax dollars are not wasted 

through fraud, abuse, or needless red tape. To that end I look forward to working with all my colleagues, particularly Mr. McNulty 

and with Commissioner Astrue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance. 

Chairman RANGEL. Thank you. 

So, Mr. McCrery, if you don’t have any other opening statements 

at this point, I would like to call on Chairman McNulty, not only 

to take over the hearing, and at the appropriate time to share the 

chair with Dr. McDermott, as I go meet with the Senators on this 

important issue. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for scheduling this hearing, and welcome, Commissioner Astrue. 

Today we focus on one of the most critical challenges facing the 

Social Security Administration, the unprecedented backlog and applications for disability benefits. 

Today more than 1.3 million Americans are waiting for a decision 

on their disability claims or their appeals. Due to this backlog, applicants who are suffering from severe disabling conditions often 

must wait for years, with little or no income and in many cases 

without health insurance. No one can hear their stories without 

being convinced that we must fix this problem and fix it soon. 

The root of the problem is simple. For too long SSA has been severely under-funded. From fiscal year 1998 through 2007 SSA received a cumulative total of $1.3 billion less than what was requested by the President, and $4.6 billion less than the Commissioner’s own budget for the Agency. As a result, by the end of 2007 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

8 

Agency staffing had dropped to almost level in 1972, even though 

SSA’s beneficiary population has nearly doubled since that time. 

Other workloads have also increased as Congress imposed new responsibilities on the agencies, such as administering major portions 

of the medicare prescription drug program. 

SSA has worked hard to meet this challenge, increasing productivity by more than 15 percent since 2001. But these productivity 

increases and the hard work of SSA’s dedicated employees cannot 

make up for the combined effects of staffing losses and increased 

workloads. 

The consequences of prolonged under-funding also extend beyond 

the disability backlogs. Service to the public in SSA’s local offices 

across the country has also declined due to staffing shortages. Our 

constituents increasingly face long lines, busy signals, and other 

delays, and field office closures are a growing concern. 

Last year we made a start on turning this untenable situation 

around. For the first time in many years, Congress approved more 

money for SSA than the President had requested. This allowed 

SSA to hire additional administrative law judges and hearing office 

staff to address the backlog. But SSA’s funding and staffing shortfalls are far too great to be remedied in one year. 

This year we are once again making a strong bipartisan effort to 

provide SSA with adequate funding. Under the President’s budget 

the Agency would continue to reduce the backlogs, but service in 

the field would decline even further. SSA needs at least the additional $240 million above the President’s budget request recommended in the House-passed budget resolution. 

I strongly urge Members of the Committee to join us in our effort 

to make adequate funding for SSA a priority this year, and I thank 

Ranking Member Johnson for his cooperation and dedication to this 

cause. 

At the same time, we must do our part not to burden SSA with 

new responsibilities that are not part of the Agency’s mission. The 

Subcommittee on Social Security will hold a hearing in the coming 

weeks on the impact on SSA proposals to expand its role in immigration enforcement. 

Today we will hear from SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue. I 

commend you, Commissioner, for your untiring commitment to 

bring down the backlog. I’d also like to thank you for your responsiveness to the Committee’s concerns, and your willingness to work 

and partnership with us as we seek ways to improve the disability 

process. 

I also look forward to hearing the views of other witnesses, including representatives of both SSA’s beneficiaries and its workers 

on the problems the Agency faces and the measures SSA is taking 

to address them. 

It is important that the Committee have your perspectives as 

well, as we work to insure better treatment for applicants and 

beneficiaries alike. 

Without objection, other Members of the Committee will be allowed to submit opening statements for the record. 

At this time I would like to recognize Commissioner Astrue. 

Again, thank you for the work that you’ve done with us over the 

past year or so, Mike. We’ve made some progress. We need to make 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

9 

more, and we look forward to hearing your views and to having a 

dialog with you. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, 

COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee, since I know I 

may not have another chance with the full Committee, I’d like to 

begin by thanking Mr. McNulty. He’s been accessible, candid, and 

thoughtful, and both the Agency and I will miss him a great deal 

next year. 

I would also like to thank all of you for your continuing bipartisan support of Social Security. The additional $148 million you 

helped obtain for 2008 has helped us significantly with staffing 

issues. We will replace SSA and DDS employees who leave this 

year and do a net hire of 1300 more employees for our direct service operation. In addition, we are hiring 175 administrative law 

judges plus up to possibly 14 more for our new national hearing 

center, and 143 additional support staff for these ALJs across the 

country. 

Nevertheless, as many of you have said, we won’t meet our many 

challenges simply by spending more money to maintain the status 

quo. Already some of the nearly 80 million baby boomers have 

begun filing for retirement. If we are not vigilant, this enormous 

caseload will hit while we’re plowing through backlogs resulting 

from rising workloads and dwindling resources. 

We will continue to work smarter as we seek the resources we 

need to meet those challenges. 

On the retirement front, our upgraded E-services will include a 

greatly streamlined homepage and a more accurate online retirement benefit estimator. In September our simplified online retirement application will increase the usage rate, dramatically reducing filing time for the public, and 12–18 months later will begin to 

adjudicate the retirement claims without routine time-consuming 

review by our field representatives. 

With respect to disability, for the first time we are updating our 

medical listings on a rotating 5-year schedule and providing detailed guidance on rare diseases that are particularly difficult to 

adjudicate. Our program consultation process now allows DDSs to 

electronically clarify policy concerns that we have found in their decisions. Our responses are quick, they provide policy guidance and 

data that we share with all adjudicators, and lead to better quality 

decisions and policy clarifications. 

The new online appeals program will reduce errors, save field 

staff from the drudgery of manual inputs, and end one source of 

delay for claimants. 

Next week we’ll meet with the DDSs to again discuss replacing 

54 separate COBOL-based computer systems that are increasingly 

difficult and expensive to maintain. If we reach consensus, I will 

request support in my 2010 budget for this significant upgrade. 

We’re making great progress with our two Fast-Track disability 

systems. One track is quick disability determinations, or QDD, 

where a computer model identifies highly probable allowances. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

10 

About 2.3 percent of all new claims are now QDDs, with a 96 percent allowance rate and a 6–8-day processing time. 

The second program in this track, Compassionate Allowances, 

which will begin around Labor Day, identifies medical conditions 

that are so severe that they obviously meet our standards. Although too early to predict, we believe that by the end of 2009 

about 4 percent of our claims will be Fast Track, possibly increasing to 6–9 percent by 2012. 

As for the hearing backlog, unfortunately there is no silver bullet. Instead, through streamlining and better use of existing resources, we’ve held down the backlogs while waiting for the infusion of new ALJs and support staff and the end of our inefficient 

paper-based systems. 

We are placing ALJs in the neediest office where space allows, 

while maintaining adequate support staff to ALJ ratios. Using 

video technology, ALJs nationwide and in the national hearing center can conduct hearings for offices with the worst backlogs. A pilot 

this summer will allow claimants to attend video hearings in their 

own lawyers’ offices, an example of how new technology and thinking can be win-win for the Agency and the people we serve. 

Last year we cleared 65,000 cases pending for 1,000 days or 

more. This year we’ve already completed 63 percent, or about 

85,000 of the 135,000 cases pending for 900 days or more. These 

cases require more development and slow our backlog progress 

measured by total pending, but these are the most important cases, 

and we must resolve them first. 

For Fiscal Year 2009 I hope to reduce the tolerance level below 

900 days but will wait until September to decide, depending on the 

anticipated timing and level of our funding. 

Our pilot to centralize hearing notice mailings should save considerable staff and make notices clearer. We have a number of 

other automation initiatives in progress. 

In conclusion, although we’ve made progress and it’s slow and 

frustrating, we are looking forward to the convergence of two key 

events later this year, the substantial elimination of the remaining 

paper cases and full productivity of the new class of hired ALJs. 

This gives me, and should give this Committee, significant hope for 

progress next year. 

In Fiscal Year 2009, we will absorb at least an additional $400 

million in built-in inflationary costs. An extended continuing resolution combined with these costs could force additional Agency contraction. Timely support of the President’s budget is absolutely critical to continued improvement. 

Once again, I very much appreciate the bipartisan collaboration 

of this Committee and its support, and would be pleased to answer 

any questions that you have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Michael J. Astrue follows:] 

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Michael J. Astrue, 

Commissioner, Social Security Administration 

Thank you for this opportunity to update you on our efforts to improve our service 

to the American public. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

11 

I would like to start with Social Security’s front door, the field office. The past 

few years have been tough for field offices. As overall agency employment dropped 

from 63,569 in 2003 to 60,206 at the end of 2007, field offices felt the effect of staffing losses more intensely because so many of our activities mandated by law are 

performed in our field offices. 

As staffing fell, workload burdens grew. The general population continued to 

grow, and it got older, which meant more retirement applications and more disability applications. New state laws aimed at illegal immigrants increased the number of people seeking replacement Social Security cards. New Federal statutes required claims representatives, teleservice representatives, and other field staff to 

take on complex and time-consuming new responsibilities in Medicare Part D. This 

year, our field offices are processing additional requests for 1099s to help taxpayers 

file for payments under the stimulus bill. 

Our field offices do their best, but simply cannot provide the level of service the 

public expects from the Social Security Administration at recent levels of funding. 

This Committee has recognized this problem and I would like to thank you for providing SSA with the resources to better fulfill our responsibilities to the American 

public. The 2008 appropriations was the first time that Congress has appropriated 

at or above the President’s Budget request since 1993. 

We are grateful to you for your support, and it is helping our field offices and teleservice centers provide improved service. We will use some of the extra funding to 

strengthen our direct service operation with the hiring of 3,900 employees, 1,300 

employees more than the expected losses for this year. We are not going to be able 

to meet our challenges by continuing to ask for more money to maintain the status 

quo. Increases in personnel and infrastructure costs alone for the fiscal year that 

starts this October will be at least $400 million. 

To cope with rising workloads and likely fiscal constraints, we have systematically 

reviewed the information that we routinely request from or provide to the public. 

We believe that if we can automate, reduce, or eliminate such information exchanges, we can improve efficiency as well as the quality of our service and the morale of our field employees. Our Ready Retirement Team has been leading this effort 

by focusing on streamlining the retirement application process, a logical choice because this past January the first of nearly 80 million baby boomers filed for retirement. 

This team already has driven change by determining that retirees born in this 

country may not need to provide their official birth certificate to prove their age. 

Instead, if a retiree alleges a date of birth that satisfies our authentication standards, we will accept the allegation. This simple change will allow baby boomers to 

file more effortlessly over the Internet, telephone, or in our offices, employing a 

more efficient process that will accelerate payment of the first check. Furthermore, 

field employees will save time on a significant number of claims each year. 

The Ready Retirement Team also has greatly improved the information available 

to people trying to decide the right date for their retirement. As we will soon announce, we are planning to provide people highly accurate on-line estimates of their 

monthly retirement benefits, which we compute by using their actual earnings 

records. Our current online estimators are difficult and time-consuming to use, and 

often fall short on accuracy. The new version will be simple, easy-to-use, and highly 

accurate. Our team worked hard with the technology and with privacy experts to 

ensure that the negligible risks of inappropriate disclosure of personal information 

justify the substantial benefits. 

Although our electronic services are usually ranked as the best of all Federal 

agencies, my judgment is they are far from good enough yet to deal with the imminent tsunami of baby boomers’ claims. After broad consultation with experts and advocacy groups, next month we will be unveiling our new website, which will eliminate some of the visual clutter and be significantly easier for the public to navigate, 

especially if they are reaching out to us for the first or second time. 

Our improved website will introduce the public to the next critical Ready Retirement initiative: a total overhaul of our online retirement application. Our current 

online form was put up quickly about 8 years ago. It is nowhere near best demonstrated practices, and for most of this decade only about 10% of the public has 

chosen to apply for retirement online. 

In order to keep field offices from being totally overwhelmed, we are going to need 

to drive that online filing figure up from about 13% to 50% over the next 5 years. 

The Ready Retirement Team has a September 27, 2008 deadline for the first step 

of a two-step implementation, and it has already shown a terrific prototype to advocacy groups, and the Social Security Advisory Board. We found that we could eliminate or simplify the vast majority of the application questions, and that we could 

use cues, links, streaming video, and other techniques from the best financial servmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

12 

ices websites to give the public a friendlier, faster, and simpler experience. We expect the current 45 minutes for the average online retirement filing to drop to an 

average of 15 minutes. 

The second step of the Ready Retirement process requires modification of 39 separate COBOL-based systems and will involve some additional improvements to the 

form itself. The key improvement will be that our computers will automatically send 

the claim to payment without the involvement of a claims representative. In the 

coming years, this one change could free up enormous amounts of staff time. 

A similar work-saver that we recently implemented is iAppeals. As you know, 

State agencies, called Disability Determination Services, decide disability claims on 

our behalf at the first two levels of the adjudication process. Currently, to appeal 

an adverse Disability Determination Services decision, the claimant or the claimant’s representative fills out a paper form and sends it to a field office, where the 

staff manually enters the appeal into a system. 

iAppeals, which is now used on a voluntary basis in about 10–15% of all cases, 

eliminates this unnecessary manual work, reduces the likelihood of human error, 

and ends one source of delay that contributes to backlogs. For these reasons, in the 

coming year, we will propose a regulation that will require claimants’ representatives to use iAppeals; the status quo will be available for unrepresented claimants. 

We also are having a separate intercomponent team study the waiting areas in 

our field offices to improve both the efficiency of the office and the experience of the 

public. We expect to roll out many changes in the next year that will improve seating, layout, privacy, signage, and other small, but important, things that make visiting a field office a better experience. 

Last month, I authorized the purchase of new intake kiosks for field offices that 

will provide a modern, fast, and user-friendly tool for the public to register the reason for their visit. These kiosks incorporate touch screen technology and are similar 

to those many Americans use for airline travel. We are also piloting the use of personal computers in the field office reception area to provide the public with 

connectivity to the SSA Internet website. These personal computers provide an option for those people who may not have access to a personal computer, or may not 

have understood our e-service options, to transact their business with us electronically. 

We are looking at using an unobtrusive slideshow presentation to remind people 

of the documents they need in order to file a claim or receive a new or replacement 

Social Security card. Those people who do not have the necessary documentation 

with them can leave to get it and come back, or call a family member to bring it 

to them, so that they will have a fully successful visit. The slides will also provide 

information about our online and 800 number services so visitors know there are 

alternatives to visiting a field office the next time they need service. 

Before I discuss our efforts to improve our disability process, I want to mention 

that immigration initiatives and demographic shifts have further strained some field 

offices with demands for new and replacement Social Security cards. To ease this 

pressure, we have moved to specialized card centers, mostly in densely populated 

and rapidly growing urban areas. These centers allow us to provide faster, more efficient, and more accurate service to the public. We are co-locating these new centers 

with field offices because doing so is cost-efficient, provides more career ladder opportunities to our employees, and most importantly, better serves the public. 

Now, I would like to turn to the disability backlogs by starting with an update 

about our efforts to improve the quality and speed of Disability Determination Services decision-making. In a time of agency contraction, for most of this decade the 

Disability Determination Services have suffered even deeper cuts than SSA. We 

have taken steps to reverse this trend, and I am very pleased that the Disability 

Determination Services will be able to replace all staff who have left or will leave 

their agencies this year. This support is a key part of our effort to bring the number 

of pending cases at the State level down below 500,000 for the first time since 1999. 

Additional resources are vital, but must be accompanied by our commitment to 

work smarter. A valid longstanding Disability Determination Services criticism of 

SSA is that our medical listings do not provide enough detail and do not keep pace 

with medical advances. In making disability determinations, SSA uses the Listing 

of Impairments (the Listings) which describes impairments that are considered severe enough to prevent a person from doing any substantial gainful activity. Although the Listings are a critical factor in SSA’s disability determination and have 

been used in millions of cases since their initial development in 1955, I discovered 

last year that some of the important listings had not been updated for decades. Updating the Listings on a regular basis will allow disability adjudicators to resolve 

disability cases more accurately and efficiently. We have already published several 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

13 

final Listing regulations, and we have developed a schedule to ensure that we update all of our medical listings at least every 5 years. 

In addition, we have made a special effort to provide guidance to decision-makers 

on the rare diseases and conditions where we are most likely to delay decisions and 

make mistakes. This new emphasis on rare diseases and conditions is an important 

element of our effort to use computer technology to pull the straightforward cases 

out of the queue and resolve them in an unprecedented brief period of time. Our 

retrospective analyses indicate that a surprisingly high percentage of these cases 

are either decided incorrectly or take an unusually long period of time to adjudicate. 

The first piece of what will be a two-track fast-track system is now up and running across the country. It is called QDD—for Quick Disability Determination—and 

right now about 2.3% of all new claims are being identified for QDD processing, and 

over 96% of them are allowances. QDD allowances are being decided in an average 

of 6 to 8 days. During the next several months, we expect the proportion of cases 

being identified for fast tracking will increase as we continue to make adjustments 

to, and test the limits of, the computer model. These adjustments should not affect 

the processing time nor the allowance rate for QDD cases. 

We are also getting close to piloting the second track, which we are calling compassionate allowances. These are cases where the disease or condition is so consistently devastating that we can presume that the claimant is disabled once we confirm a valid diagnosis. By deciding more cases based on medical evidence alone, we 

can reduce the number of claims that require further review. 

Since this is new territory, we do not know what the eventual mix of QDD and 

compassionate allowance cases will be, but a reasonable guess is that by the end 

of 2009, about 4% of our claims will be fast-tracked. By the end of 2012, that number could be 6% to 9% of our claims. I stress, however, that right now these numbers are best guesses and that we will not really know until we have pushed this 

effort for a longer period of time. 

We have also extended nationwide the Request for Program Consultation, a Disability Determination Services quality initiative that was incorporated into Disability Service Improvement. As we are speeding up our processing of cases, it is 

essential that we maintain our focus on accuracy. An institutionalized forum for 

communication between Disability Determination Services and SSA on problematic 

cases is an important part of that effort. 

The Request for Program Consultation provides an electronic forum to resolve disagreements between the Disability Determination Services and our Office of Quality 

Performance. These disagreements may involve, for instance, whether a Disability 

Determination Services agency obtained appropriate documentation, applied policy 

correctly, or decided the case accurately. The Request for Program Consultation is 

a web-based application that is available to Disability Determination Services nationwide. The Request for Program Consultation website allows Disability Determination Services to submit requests electronically and those requests appear instantaneously for review by the Request for Program Consultation Team. The Request for Program Consultation Team analyzes and resolves cases within seven 

days. Prior to this consultation process, Disability Determination Services often 

waited several months for a definitive resolution on complex cases. The Request for 

Program Consultation allows us to gather data on each request and share it with 

all users so that they may use that information to write better policy and make better decisions. 

As we work to improve the timeliness and quality of our disability determinations, 

we are also considering longer-term systems improvement. We will be having important discussions with State administrators in New Orleans next week to discuss a 

unified information technology system to replace the current 54 separate COBOLbased systems that are increasingly difficult to modify and expensive to maintain. 

A similar consolidation effort collapsed in early 1999, but we have been working toward this goal for nearly a year, and I am cautiously optimistic. If we can obtain 

a sufficient degree of consensus with our partners in the States in the next few 

months, we may move forward with this essential improvement provided we have 

sufficient resources. 

We are working on a new software tool called eCAT (Electronic Case Analysis 

Tool) for use by disability examiners. eCAT will prompt examiners about questions 

they should ask and documentation that they need before making a disability determination. The initial model for eCAT was developed by the Pennsylvania Disability 

Determination Services. Unfortunately, eCAT was implemented prematurely as part 

of Disability Service Improvement and failed miserably. The Virginia Disability Determination Services is helping us refine eCAT so that we properly implement a 

good concept. While eCAT will not be ready to pilot earlier than next year, it offers 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

14 

the hope of using cutting-edge technology to make faster, more accurate, and betterdocumented decisions. 

I would like to now turn to the hearings backlog. If you step back and look at 

the system as an economist would, we have had, for many years, issues of allocation 

and distribution of resources. The problem of allocation has been painfully clear— 

compared to 10 years ago we have about 176 % more disability cases. We have 

taken a big step toward resolving that problem by bringing onboard the 175 additional administrative law judges and additional staff to support them. If we can resolve space issues, we will also bring on another 14 National Hearing Center judges 

this year. 

The resource distribution problem is neither obvious nor is its cause clear to me. 

Nonetheless, when you look at where we were a year ago, it is clear that there was 

a longstanding imbalance in Office of Disability Adjudication and Review resources. 

In particular, the Chicago and Atlanta regions were dramatically under-resourced 

compared to the rest of the country. The hearing offices in many of the most backlogged cities—such as Atlanta, Cleveland, and Detroit—were receiving 3–4 times as 

many filings per administrative law judge as offices in Southern California and New 

England. 

We have moved swiftly to correct this problem. Where we can address it by changing jurisdictional lines in adjacent locations, we have done so. As an example, our 

suburban Pittsburgh office now serves Youngstown and other parts of eastern Ohio 

to take some of the burden off overloaded offices in Cleveland and Columbus. For 

the same reasons, we have reassigned responsibility for cases scheduled for video 

hearings to less busy offices. At our site in Toledo, we have video hearing capability, 

so that now administrative law judges in Boston assist the Toledo office with their 

video hearings. 

Our new National Hearing Center (NHC), which holds video hearings from a central location, also gives us the capability to move cases quickly and flexibly to conduct video hearings in the cities with the worst backlogs. Right now, our NHC administrative law judges are focusing their efforts on the backlogs in Atlanta, Cleveland, and Detroit. We are planning to expand this NHC initiative as soon as we can 

and intend to address the backlogs in Miami, Columbus, Indianapolis, and other cities where claimants have been waiting the longest. 

With the allocation of the 175 newly-hired administrative law judges, we have 

made equalizing resources a priority even though we have received some criticism 

for doing so. We are sending 10 to Ohio and just 1 to New England. That is not 

a regional bias—I am from Boston myself—but a data-driven decision that recognizes that there is a strong correlation between filings per administrative law judge 

and cases pending. 

We have also received some criticism that we are not providing adequate support 

staff for our administrative law judge corps. In my opinion, that is a fiction designed 

to sidetrack some of our productivity initiatives. Since I began as Commissioner, I 

have increased the number of support staff per ALJ from 4.1 to 4.4. The number 

of staff needed to support a disposition will change as we fully implement the backlog plan, but at the moment that number is difficult to project with any certainty. 

We know that automating many of our clerical functions will reduce the amount of 

time spent by staff on more routine tasks, and allow them to absorb additional 

workloads. We are also working to standardize our business process, which should 

result in additional staff efficiencies. We will continue to monitor the appropriate 

staff to ALJ ratio as the new processes are implemented. 

While we will still have a handful of offices that will be under-resourced due to 

various barriers, such as the cumbersome process for adding additional space, we 

are just months away from no longer being able to offer resource issues as a defense 

to poor productivity. It is time for everyone from senior management to the most 

junior support staff to commit themselves to finding the best ways to work together 

to make sure that nobody waits an inexcusable period of time for a final decision 

on an appeal. Performance varies greatly from office to office, and we are working 

toward having the least productive offices model themselves, to the extent possible, 

after the more productive offices. 

While waiting for the new administrative law judges and support staff to be fully 

trained and productive, we have done our best to attack the backlogs with a series 

of administrative and regulatory changes that have slowed the increase in pending 

cases and slightly reduced average processing times. We could have made even 

greater progress, but chose instead to make the important commitment to clear out 

the most aged cases where the claimant has waited 1,000 days or more for a hearing. I would like to take a little time to explain why that decision is so critical. 

For most of this decade, SSA created rules and incentives focused solely on the 

most prominent metric for measuring the backlog—total cases pending. As logical 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

15 

as this decision may seem at first, if you think about it harder you will see that 

it creates a perverse incentive to focus on the easiest cases and to set aside the difficult ones. That is what happened until the start of the 2007 fiscal year, when we 

had about 65,000 cases over 1,000 days old, some of which had been pending for 

as long as 1,400 days. 

Even though these 1,000-day-old cases generally take 5–6 times longer than new 

cases to resolve, we set the goal of clearing them out by the end of the year. We 

came within 108 cases of that goal by the end of FY 2007, and I am happy to report 

that all of those cases are now gone. From a moral perspective, we had to dedicate 

our resources to clear out these cases because it is just wrong to let claimants wait 

an unconscionable length of time in order to meet a hearing-pending goal. 

We were not satisfied with our initial success, and for FY 2008, we redefined our 

goal as cases 900 or more days old. We had 135,000 of the newly-defined aged cases 

at the start of FY 2008. I am pleased to report that we are ahead of schedule for 

completing all 135,000 of these cases this year; we have already completed 63% of 

them. Our intention is to reduce the tolerance level again in FY 2009, but I plan 

to wait until September before doing so. 

I know you recognize that our ability to make continued progress with this workload in the next fiscal year will depend greatly on our fiscal position. If we do not 

receive a timely appropriation or must deal with the uncertainties and budget reductions created by a continuing resolution of unknown duration, our task will be 

much more difficult to accomplish. 

Reduction of the aged cases should also produce, later this calendar year, a real 

benefit for everyone who is waiting. The aged cases represent a large percentage of 

the paper cases in the system, and it is extraordinarily inefficient to run two complex hearing office systems instead of one. What should give everybody on this Committee hope for next year is that the paper cases should be substantially gone by 

the end of the year—around the same time that most of the new administrative law 

judges are reaching full productivity. The convergence of these two events means 

that we expect to hit the ‘‘tipping point’’—where both total cases pending and average processing time are declining—sometime in January or February of next year, 

with the caveat that progress may be slow if we are still under a continuing resolution. 

We have other possible improvements in the pipeline. In June, we expect to start 

a 6-month pilot program with the National Organization of Social Security Claims 

Representatives, an association primarily comprised of lawyers. In this pilot, we are 

testing a program that will allow representatives to conduct video hearings from 

their offices. This initiative should offer convenience and comfort for many claimants, save time for attorneys, and cut down on our investment in bricks and mortar, 

a cost which increases above the rate of inflation year after year. 

We are planning on a test in Michigan which will use the same type of case 

profiling mechanisms that we used in our successful attorney-advisor and informal 

remand initiatives to look at cases heading from the Disability Determination Services to Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. Michigan is a ‘‘prototype’’ State 

that does not have reconsideration, and we are looking at ways of providing a quick 

screening tool to enhance the quality of the initial determinations. What we learn 

from this screening activity may help us identify cases that can be triaged at an 

earlier point in the appeals process. 

We have started a pilot on centralized processing of notices, which may sound 

dull, but in theory should save an enormous amount of time for hearing office support staff that then can be used for moving cases. Regardless of the success of this 

pilot, at a minimum it will be an opportunity to make Office of Disability Adjudication and Review notices more up-to-date, clear, and user—friendly. 

We will continue to improve Office of Disability Adjudication and Review’s basic 

electronic system. A new system to help support staff ready files for hearing should 

be rolling out state-by-state by the end of the year. We are working on systems that 

will improve docketing and allow authenticated attorney representatives to access 

the records to check files for such things as case status and evidentiary development. As I have said before, there is no magic bullet answer, just a multitude of 

small nitty-gritty improvements necessary to run a more efficient and compassionate process for the American public. 

Before I close, I feel obligated to bring one aspect of last month’s Trustees’ Report 

to your attention. Although the combined OASDI trust funds do not reach exhaustion until 2041, the disability trust fund will be exhausted in 2025 under current 

assumptions. Although that date is later than the 2019 trust fund exhaustion date 

for Medicare Hospital Insurance, it is one more reason why Congress needs to work 

together on a bipartisan basis with the administration to give younger Americans 

reason to have confidence in the future of Social Security. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

16 

To conclude, we have made slow and frustrating progress in fixing our service delivery problems, but we are making progress, and I am grateful to each Member of 

this Committee for your support. As I have laid out in this testimony, changes that 

will take place between Labor Day and the end of the year—streamlined online filing, at least 175 new administrative law judges picking up steam, and the full shift 

from paper to electronic systems in Office of Disability Adjudication and Review— 

should produce considerably more improvement next year. Operating under a continuing resolution for a prolonged period of time would worsen a situation already 

made difficult by years of increasing workloads and limited resources. It is also essential that we receive the full President’s Budget for FY 2009 in order to keep up 

with increasing workloads and meet our commitment to eliminate the hearings 

backlog by the end of FY 2013. So I ask for your timely support of the President’s 

budget. 

Thank you for this opportunity to lay out in detail our plans and progress, and 

I will be happy to answer any questions you have. 

f 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you very much, Commissioner. 

Commissioner, under your hearing backlog reduction plan, the 

hearing backlogs would not be eliminated until the year 2013, assuming adequate funding. Now I’m assuming that if we kind of 

keep on the track that we’re on now, 148 million last year and 

maybe 240 this year, if we keep on that kind of a track, how significantly could we reduce that timeframe, in other words, get the 

backlog dispensed with even sooner than that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. That’s a good question, Mr. McNulty. So, the 

plan that we laid out last year was based on some assumptions of 

what we would able to do and the funding that we would be able 

to get. I want to assure you that my staff is not comfortable, that 

that’s the minimum level of performance. We are trying to beat 

those goals, and we work very hard to try to do that. 

So, for instance, when we laid out that plan, we assumed 150 administrative law judges with the new funding. We’re going to get 

at least 175, and if we can resolve some space issues related to the 

national hearing center, we’re shooting for another fourteen more 

this year. 

So, we’ve exceeded the goal that we set for ourselves. We’re trying to do that consistently. If we can get there faster, I want to get 

there faster. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Commissioner. On that office space 

issue, we understand that that’s an issue and in some cases a barrier to adding these new administrative law judges (ALJs) and 

some staff in the hearing offices. What could the Committee do to 

help you overcome some of these barriers in order to place the staff 

more quickly, where they’re most urgently needed? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some of this is built 

into the process. We go through GSA for leasing and renovation of 

space. They handle an enormous number of situations around the 

country. They generally do a pretty good job. But usually even 

under the absolute best scenario it takes at least a year, and often 

18–24 months to acquire new space. 

Certainly expressions of support from the Committee that something is a priority, GSA tries to be responsive to that, and we’ll try 

to work with the Committee to indicate if there are particular locations where the space issues are going to be very critical. I think 

it’s likely—we’re doing an inventory now and probably by some 

time next month we can sit down with the staff and work out 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

17 

where the critical places are. But they’re probably Buffalo, Chicago, 

Albuquerque, a few other places around the country where the faster we can access space, either new space or add-on space, or renovation of space, could greatly help our efforts. 

When we finish that inventory, I think sitting down and working 

with the Committee staff to identify those places where you can express your support for the priority for those new space acquisitions 

would be very helpful to us. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Do you think we’re actually going to be able to 

physically position those 175 new ALJs we’re talking about for this 

year? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Absolutely. We have actual physical space for all 

175. As I mentioned in more detail in my written testimony, one 

of the things that I think has been a problem historically is that 

there has been a pattern of under-allocating to the Chicago and Atlanta regions; so my understanding is that we have, I believe, filled 

every vacant office in the Chicago region, and just close to that in 

the Atlanta region. 

We are doing an inventory of our own space to see whether we 

can do some renovations. One of the benefits of moving away a 

from paper process to an electronic one is that it should free up 

some space So for instance, in Buffalo and some of the other hearing offices where space is an issue, we may be able to move faster 

with the renovation than by accessing new space if we can, for instance, clear out the paper file room, which is huge in a lot of these 

offices, and convert at least one or two parts of that office to a new 

judge’s office. So, we’re looking at that now, and we should be 

much more ready to have that conversation now that we’ve decided 

who’s going where and what we’re going to need next year, in the 

next 30 days or so. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Commissioner, on this video conferencing issue, 

it sounds like these initiatives as a substitute for in-person hearings, will offer some relief to claimants facing long delays. But several of our leader witnesses point in their testimony that video conferencing is not a good option for some claimants, or some types of 

cases. What is your plan to insure that claimants maintain a meaningful right to an in-person hearing and are not faced with an impossible choice between a video hearing soon or an in-person hearing months or years later? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, certainly my view is that the quality of this 

technology has improved dramatically in recent years and it’s come 

down in cost. I’ve sat through a fairly sensitive video hearing, and 

really felt that very little was lost in that conversation. 

So, I think for most claimants most of the time, this is a very 

real option where there’s no loss in quality. On the other hand, if 

a claimant feels that way, they don’t have to accept the video hearing and they can wait for an in-person hearing. For a lot of the 

claimants, the video hearing can often save on travel. If you’ve got 

a mobility impairment or some other aspect of your impairment 

that makes it difficult to travel, or you’ve got a psychological condition, where you’re going to be more comfortable in your lawyer’s office, or that type of thing, I think the video hearings are going to 

be a blessing for that certain segment of the disability population. 

But any claimant who doesn’t feel comfortable with it; doesn’t have 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

18 

to do it. We find in practice that very few claimants actually turn 

down the option of the video hearing; but some of them do, and 

we’re always sensitive to claimants who feel that way. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Commissioner. The Ranking Member Mr. McCrery may inquire. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Commissioner Astrue, there has been a lot of talk around Congress that we may end up with a continuing resolution to fund government operations for fiscal year 2009. If that’s the case, what effect would that have on your operations and the effectiveness of Social Security Administration operations and customer service during the coming year? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It would be bad. We would go back to a situation 

where we would have some form of hiring freeze. We’ve been looking at that recently. Probably not a full hiring freeze in the beginning. But you would see some substantial contraction of staff, so 

you’d see deterioration of service times in the teleservice centers 

and the DDSs, in particular. 

To the extent that we need to make some commitments on physical space, at some point we need to show GSA that we’re actually 

going to need the space and we’re going to be able to fill them with 

bodies. So, there’s a risk, as I understand it, that if we’re back in 

a situation where we’ve got a hiring freeze and financial issues, it 

may also slow up the space acquisition process. 

So, it would have some immediate impacts that would be bad, 

but it could also have a longer term impact, because we are going 

to need some additional space in some parts of the country in order 

to deliver the kind of service that I think everybody here wants us 

to deliver. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Again, in the budget that the President has presented, it calls for a 6-percent increase over 2009 funding, is that 

right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, it does. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Will that 6-percent increase solve all your problems? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I wish. One of the things that we heard loud and 

clear from the Congress as I came in was that the first priority had 

to be disability backlog production. We agreed with that. In fact, 

we had to talk—at one point the Senate was talking about limiting 

the increase in funds to only that, which I think wisely they backed 

off from. 

But I think one of the things that wasn’t clear to the Congress 

in past years that we’ve made a point of being transparent on, is 

that in all these years of contraction, there have been workloads 

that have been set aside that are less critical to most Americans. 

A lot of those relate to program integrity, so they have substantial 

long-term costs for the system. 

But there is work that’s not getting done, and my predecessor’s 

last budget was predicated in part on that, but I don’t think it was 

laid out clearly enough to the Congress what those were. I don’t 

think Congress understood. Certainly when I came here a lot of 

Members did not understand why that budget request was as high 

as it was. So, we’ve been very transparent. Nobody likes to lay out 

where they’re failing. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

19 

But I think it’s important for us to explain to everyone in Congress what is not getting done, and why, and how who we’ve done 

the prioritization, so that you can make the judgments on funding 

as to what gets done in the coming years and what doesn’t get 

done. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Now let’s talk for just a minute about the situation with the trust fund for disability. I mentioned in my opening 

remarks that for the last 3 years outlays of the disability program 

have exceeded revenue coming in, and the trust fund is going 

therefore slowly be drained. In less than two decades it’s projected 

that promised benefits, current benefits won’t be payable. 

You’ve been conducting some demonstration projects around the 

country related to gradually offsetting benefits due to earnings, and 

determining the impacts of funding treatment for those with certain mental impairments. Do you have any preliminary results of 

those? Can you tell how those and other projects might help us to 

fundamentally reform the disability program? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. Several good questions. I also mentioned in 

my testimony the 2025 date on the disability trust fund. I think it 

would almost be insulting to raise the issue of the retirement trust 

fund generally. There’s been so much discussion. You all know that 

date. But there is a tradition that the trustees and the actuaries 

tend to report the combined retirement and disability trust funds. 

I do think that the status of the disability trust fund sometimes 

gets overlooked as a result of that. So, I did make a point of mentioning that in my testimony, because I think that’s important for 

the Committee to consider. 

We don’t have any data yet on the demonstration projects that 

you’ve mentioned. We’re hopeful that they it will provide some real 

benefit for claimants, and some marginal improvement in the trust 

funds. We are also looking at the question of work incentives much 

more broadly. I think it’s fair to say that it’s my perspective that 

the Ticket to Work Program generally has been disappointing in 

terms of its result. So we do have a task force now within the 

Agency that’s looking broadly at the question of work incentives 

with the idea of perhaps coming up with a package of regulatory 

and legislative proposals. Probably early 2009 is our timetable now. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you. The Ranking Member, Mr. Levin, 

may inquire. 

Mr. LEVIN. Welcome. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. LEVIN. This is a hearing, as we know, on the disability 

backlog. So, I want us to focus on that, and look at from the perspective of the person who’s waiting, and not get lost in some of 

the details, the organizational details that are important. 

I think everybody here has to face up to what’s been happening 

this last decade, especially those who had a major responsibility. I 

think we need to face the music on this. As I understand it, I have 

a chart that shows—and these are the appropriations these last 10 

years—that from 1999 to 2007 Congress cut the SSA budget by 4.6 

billion compared to what had been requested by the Commissioner. 

Indeed, compared to what OMB requested, which was much less 

than the Commissioner’s request, Congress cut SSA’s budget by 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

20 

$1.3 billion. The result of this, one result is that today people are 

waiting—what’s the average for a hearing, Mr. Commissioner? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It’s a moving target, but it’s just over 500 days. 

Mr. LEVIN. That’s a year and a half. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. LEVIN. You and have met to talk about this, and I just want 

everybody to have a sense of responsible and I think a sense of outrage, because that’s the way our constituents who file these claims, 

they have every right to feel outrage. 

Now you and I have discussed this. The average is a year and 

a half. In many places it’s much more than that, right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, it is. 

Mr. LEVIN. For those who are covered by the office in Oak Park, 

Michigan, the average processing time is 764 days, right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. That’s close to the worst in the country. 

Mr. LEVIN. What do we say to somebody who’s waiting—that’s 

over two years. Right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. That’s correct. 

Mr. LEVIN. When Congress, the last ten years until the recent 

action where we increased the budget, I don’t always say to them, 

‘‘Now you’ve inherited this and this new Congress has tried to 

begin to rectify it.’’ Let me just ask you—we’ve talked measures to 

balance between hearing offices. You’ve said it’s going to take until 

what year before we get a total grip on this? 

Mr. ASTRUE. The plan that we laid out for Congress last year, 

which was based on a number of assumptions that may change, 

was 2012. We hope to do better than that, and we work very hard 

to try to better than that, and I like to think that we’re ahead of 

schedule. But if you want to say, ‘‘I want to see the real progress, 

I want to be able to make an initial judgment,’’ you probably won’t 

be able to tell whether we’re really hitting the target clearly until 

the first quarter of next year. 

We’ve made progress with the total pending; the increase in the 

total pending is down the last two fiscal years. It would have been 

down more except we made the priority of the aged cases, which 

take a lot more time to remove from the system. That was with a 

record low number of ALJs. 

With all the improvements coming, with the infusion of new 

ALJs, there should be a dramatic turn somewhere around the beginning of next year, or maybe a little sooner. 

Mr. LEVIN. When you say a dramatic turn, what does that 

mean? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, we’re hoping and expecting that the backlog 

will hit a tipping point when the new ALJs are fully productive, 

when the paper cases are substantially gone, then we’re going to 

be able to start driving it down at approximately the same rate 

that it went up. It was going up at about 75,000 cases a year for 

most of this decade. For 2007 it went up 32,000, if I remember correctly. Annualized for the first half of this year, it’s about 11,000. 

So, it’s been coming down, even with limited lower resources, on 

the basis, I think, of better management and improved productivity 

at ODAR. I want to give the staff at ODAR a lot of credit. The only 

reason it wasn’t a lot worse this year is we got about a 10 percent 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

21 

improvement in productivity, and that’s a great credit to a lot of 

the people that are working very hard to try to solve this. 

Mr. LEVIN. My time’s up. I just wanted everybody to face the 

facts here, and I think what has happened in this country with disability is indefensible, and we’re now taking steps to—I mean the 

hole was dug so deeply. This institution helped to dig that hole. 

Mr. ASTRUE. As you know, Mr. Levin, we’ve talked about this 

several times now. I don’t disagree with your basic premise, and for 

me it was a motivating factor to try to come back and fix it. I mean 

that’s really the big challenge in the Agency. A lot of the other bigpicture issues have been taken away from the Agency, so when you 

sign up to be Commissioner these days, you’re signing up to try to 

fix this problem, and that’s what I signed up for. It’s that frustrating government doesn’t move quickly, but I think you’ve got 

enough data now to say ‘‘It’s starting to move in the right direction; 

there are some good plans in place that have not had a chance to 

take effect yet.’’ There is some real reason to hope it’s going to be 

substantially better next year. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Levin. Mr. Herger may inquire. 

Mr. HERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Astrue, 

earlier this year, both the Office of Management and Budget and 

the Government Accountability Office identified the Supplemental 

Security Income Program as having had improper payments of over 

$4 billion, and the Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Program is having had improper payments of over $2.5 billion in fiscal 

year 2007. I’d like to ask you about the Administration’s effort to 

effectively protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. We all want to 

see the application process for disability benefits move as quickly 

and as accurately as possible. But at the same time we have an obligation to make sure that disability benefits are paid to those who 

are disabled and not to those who don’t satisfy program requirements. 

For example, for years incarcerated individuals were improperly 

receiving Social Security and welfare checks, until our republicanled reforms in 1996 and 1999 successfully ended this practice, saving taxpayers billions of dollars. Additional reforms in 2004 cracked 

down on fugitive felons who were illegally receiving Social Security 

and SSA disability payments. 

Mr. Commissioner, what are we doing to prevent fraud and 

abuse in the disability application progress? As we strive to shorten 

waiting times, I certainly hope we continue to pay the proper attention to paying the right benefits to those who actually qualify. 

Would you please discuss your ability to achieve both goals, shortening waiting times, while still getting eligibility decisions right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. It’s a very good question. We’ve got so many important things that we’re trying to do all at once. It’s difficult, but 

I agree that the program integrity work is very important, and 

when it’s set aside, there are long-term costs for the public that 

we’ll never recoup. 

So, I think it’s important for the Congress—I know this Committee understands—but it’s important for the Congress as a whole 

to understand that when the budget got squeezed over the 15-year 

period that Mr. McNulty laid out, one of the very important things 

that stopped being done the way that it should be done is that the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

22 

number of continuing disability reviews in Title XVI and re-determinations in Title IV dropped dramatically. The reason for that is 

it was one of relatively few discretionary workloads. 

A lot of what we do is absolutely mandated by Congress. As a 

result, the numbers have dropped dramatically. The accuracy is not 

where we would like it to be in Title XVI. Last year’s appropriation 

allows us to increase that important work. That 2009 budget anticipates that we will also move in that direction. 

But when something’s been allowed—as with the hearing backlogs—when something’s been allowed to degrade over a decade, you 

know as much as it’s important, I can’t fix it in a year. So, even 

though there’s substantial progress, we’re not going to catch up on 

all the cases that should have been reviewed. We’re going to be behind almost no matter what happens in the 2009 budget. But we’re 

going to try to catch up as much as possible, get our accuracy rate 

as high as we can possibly get it. 

I should also mention that one of the casualties has been the Inspector General’s budget, which took a real cut, for instance, last 

year. They do some very important work. I know they’re independent and they make their own requests, but they do some very 

important work for us, and so I would like to put in a little bit of 

a plug for the Inspector General, as well, who’s critical in our efforts on waste, fraud, and abuse. 

Mr. HERGER. I thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. HERGER. I yield back. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Herger. Dr. McDermott may inquire. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I came to 

Congress I came in 1989, at a time when we had a savings and 

loan crisis in this country. In my view, at least a major reason why 

that was created was that the Reagan Administration cut the number of banking examiners, so that banks never got examined. Then 

we found all this mess and we spent billions of dollars bailing them 

out, because we did not have the proper administrative work done 

by the administration. It was deliberate not to go in and look at 

what banks were doing. 

Now I think it’s unfair for us to accuse, or to beat you up today, 

and I don’t intend to. I want to say that GAO has actually taken 

you off the list of places where people ought to look for fraud, 

waste, and abuse. Well, my colleague brings that issue up. It is a 

red herring, in my view. It is not the place to be looking. We’re 

talking about people who are not even adults in many cases; 

they’re children, and we’re talking about cases in my area you have 

to wait 575 days to get taken care of; 578 days in Seattle before 

your appeals is brought up for a hearing. 

Now what I’d like to ask you is how many of those appeals actually qualify for SSI benefits, when all is said and done at the end 

of that appeal process? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. The allowance figure at the hearings level 

has gone up in recent years, which is predictable, because as the 

delays increase, it’s an open-ended process; so if people’s conditions 

deteriorate—they may not have been eligible in the beginning of 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

23 

the process, but they get benefits if they’re eligible later in the 

process. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. The percent who get paid if they’re benefits—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. It’s a little over 60 percent. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. So . . . 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, you have to realize that relatively few of the 

cases appeal from the states. So, about 33–35 percent—we’ll get 

you the precise number for the record—are allowed at the DDS 

level. Approximately a third. For all the hearings and appeals process, add about another 5 percent to that total, so it’s about 38–40 

percent who actually end up getting benefits. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. If that’s true and you have all the experience 

you have in the SSI Program, you must have a profile of those 

most likely to get approved at the end of the process 2 years from 

now, right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. Absolutely. Again, we’ve embraced that in a 

major league way. Not just at the back end of the process, where 

our quality of people have been very helpful in building precisely 

the kind of templates that you see, so we can pull those cases out, 

not put them through the whole process, and decide them quickly. 

That’s been very helpful; we’ve been doing that both in terms of the 

voluntary remand program and the attorney advisor program. We’ll 

give you information on those templates. 

[The information follows:] 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.001 48116A.002
24 

But I think it’s important to do that on the front end, as well. 

So we’ve put a lot of effort into this Fast-Tracking in the front end, 

and I know some people think, well, you know, the percentage isn’t 

big enough, but if we can get that number up to approximately 10 

percent of the cases in the next few years—you have to realize, 

we’re looking at more than 2.5 million filings per year—if we can 

get up to 10 percent that means that a quarter million Americans 

each year will get their benefits within 6–8 days, which is what 

we’re hitting now. 

So, I think it’s very important at every stage of the process to 

try to figure out where we’re going wrong, figure out what the patterns are, and try to address that. We’ve tried to that very systematically in a way that I don’t think we’ve done before. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I’m aware of what you’re doing, and what 

I’m going to ask you is: What can we do additionally to give you 

authority or flexibility to make those decisions earlier rather than 

putting people through a two-year waiting period to finally give 

them their benefits, by which time they are worse, and qualify? 

Now some of those things you will know up front. They’re going 

to get worse if we don’t do anything medically for these people. 

They have no healthcare benefits. You know they’re going to be 

worse, so you could actually save money, it seems to me, if you 

dealt with it up front. I’d like to hear your suggestions about things 

we could do to make this better for the process to work for those 

who you know you’re ultimately give money to. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, that’s a good forward-looking question. On 

one of the things, we’re not quite ready yet. One of the recurring 

debates over decades in the system is whether we need the state 

to perform two levels of review. There are a lot of reasons right 

now where it’s important to claimants to have that second level of 

review; although there was a Clinton Administration initiative to 

eliminate that, and we still have eight states that don’t have the 

recon. 

There are some issues on that, and I’ve talked to Mr. Levin about 

that in some detail, because one of the reasons that the filing rates 

in Michigan appear to be so high is that there are probably a lot 

of cases coming out of the state that shouldn’t be there in the first 

place. We’ve got a new Federal-level initiative to see if we can 

screen those out with exactly the kind of templates that you’re 

talking about. 

But I think that it’s important to try to do as much right up front 

as possible. So, we have a new computer system that was rolled out 

prematurely in DSI, that was a disaster, that we pulled back. We 

spent a year and a half trying to do it right. It’s getting close. The 

modified system will do a lot more queuing for the state employed 

in the beginning; it will help them assemble the records much more 

easily. 

If we can do that well and we can find out much better mechanisms for getting medical records into the process early -because 

one of the reasons the whole system is just so ridiculously inefficient is that at the point where we make decisions, we don’t have 

the full medical records. There’s joint responsibility on that. Some 

of that is claimant, some of that is their attorneys. Some of it is 

ours. Some of it is hospitals. Some of it is physicians. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

25 

So we’re trying to get a handle on that. Particularly in a time 

when the world is moving to electronic medical records, to try to 

make sure that we use our resources as efficiently and compassionately as possible, so that we make the very best decisions as 

early as possible in the process. We’ve got room for improvement, 

but we’ve got to make sure that we do it right. There’s a history 

in this Agency because of concerns from the public of rushing a lot 

of things that aren’t ready for prime time. There’s been a lot of 

damage to the Agency from some very well intended initiatives. 

So, one of the things again—and you may get frustrated with us 

about this—but if you look through the testimony of the panelists, 

we’ve got a lot of things that are being piloted. I think that’s bestdemonstrated practice. 

Before we roll them out for the American public, we want to 

make sure that they operate the way that they were supposed to 

operate. So, the e-cat system again, which was one of those things 

that was inflicted on the public too early helped create backlogs in 

New England, where we’d never had them before. We pulled that 

out, but now we’re trying to do it right, and before we roll that out 

more broadly, you can rest assured that we’ll take one state, two 

states, tested in a limited way, before we bring it out more broadly. 

But the general idea is if we can contract the process, make it 

as good as possible as early as possible, that’s the ultimate answer 

to reducing some of these waiting times in the grand scheme over 

a slightly longer haul. That has to go in tandem with all these incremental things we’re trying to do to make the status quo run better in the meantime. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Dr. McDermott. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Dr. McDermott. 

Mr. Camp may inquire. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I ask my question, I just want to go back to something 

Mr. McDermott mentioned. While GAO may have taken the Agency 

off the high-risk category, Office of Management and Budget and 

the GAO have identified the Supplemental Security Income Program as having had improper payments of over $4 billion, and the 

Old-Age Survivors and Disability Insurance Programs as having 

had improper payments of over $2.5 billion. I think we all have an 

interest in having program integrity and insuring that improper 

payments are confronted so that those people who are truly needy 

are receiving those payments. 

I just want to thank your staff on the frontlines that I know my 

office works with closely, and appreciate their efforts on behalf of 

all of those going through the disability process. Michigan is one 

of those ten prototype states you mentioned in your testimony, and 

so the reconsideration process is eliminated there. GAO in 2002 decided not to expand this because of some problems with administrative costs, increased appeals, and we’re seeing in Michigan 

longer wait times. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. CAMP. You mentioned in your testimony that you’re looking 

at a screening tool. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

26 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right—— 

Mr. CAMP. For states like Michigan. Could you just elaborate on 

this initiative and what plans it might have for states like Michigan that have seen their wait times increases? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. So, 14 months ago we probably spent most 

of the first four months trying to get a handle on DSI. Then when 

we resolved what we needed to do on that, we focused on the backlog nationally with as much intensity as possible. We started a 

process about six months ago to try to look much more at the local 

level at individualized solutions, to try to figure out where the 

problems were. In most of the prototype states, it doesn’t appear 

that it creates an enormous problem at the hearing level, but it 

does appear that there’s a potential problem in Michigan. So, you 

know, the automatic response is, ‘‘Well, we’ll just make them do 

what everyone else does and go to recon’’, which would be expensive, time-consuming, politically controversial, and might not help 

the problem for some time. 

What we’ve tried is to look at a faster, quicker, and smarter 

model. So we’re looking at precisely the kind of templates that Congressman McDermott was referring to, to see if we can identify the 

cases that are coming out of the DDS in Michigan that probably 

shouldn’t be there in the first place; try to do a very quick review— 

and by ‘‘quick’’ I’m talking about 7–10 days as the target, and either send them back to the DDS with instructions as to what needs 

to be done, or if they should simply be allowed, we will have a process within ODAR to send it over with the recommendation so that 

there can be a quick allowance of those cases. 

If that works, it’s possible that that may be a model that we 

could use more broadly around the country. But again, I don’t like 

to over-promise. I like to know what’s really going to happen before 

we roll it out to the rest of the country. 

But I think it could be helpful in Michigan, and we should know, 

I would hope, by the end of the year. 

Mr. CAMP. Well, in private disability insurance by law, those 

have to receive their determinations within 45 days. Many times 

they get their determinations in 30 days. Are there any tools that 

the private sector is using that the SSA could learn from?, and why 

are they able to make their determination so quickly? 

Mr. ASTRUE. We do look at the private insurers from time to 

time. They also look at us. I think that there are some differences 

and I think that we do have much more of a problem in terms of 

accessing medical records. 

You know, typically with private insurance, you have an employer who is very financially motivated if an employee deserves 

disability benefits to cooperate with that and help them walk 

through the process. We don’t have anything comparable there. So 

that’s one of the big differences, I think, between the private insurance and what we do, is that the challenge of assembling the medical records so that we can make a fair decision in the particular 

case is a little bit—— 

Mr. CAMP. To that end I understand you’re working on a health 

information technology system. Clearly automating the collection of 

those medical records would be helpful. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

27 

Mr. CAMP. Can you just sort of tell me the status of that initiative? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, it’s a moving target. We do have what we 

call Electronic Records Express, and that’s been helpful. It will be 

somewhat limited until the rest of the private sector moves to electronic records. But it is helping. I think generally we’re feeling 

we’re getting more records earlier, but we still—one of the root 

causes of inefficiency in the system is that we just don’t have the 

right information at the right time. We’ve got a long way to go before we’re really up at the level that everybody would want. Some 

of that’s not under our control, but we’re trying to get there as fast 

as we can. 

Mr. CAMP. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Camp. 

Mr. Lewis may inquire. 

*Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Mr. Commissioner, for your service. Thank you for being here. Mr. 

Commissioner, I represent Atlanta, which has the highest backlog 

for disability appeal in the country. The average processing time in 

the Atlanta Northfield Office is 828 days. That is the absolute 

worst, the very worst in the country. 

Mr. ASTRUE. You have the second-worst in Atlanta as well. 

*Mr. LEWIS. In Atlanta, it’s not much better than 750 days. I 

have 51 individuals in my district who have contacted me for assistance in dealing with the office of hearing appeals. The oldest 

case has been pending in my office since August 13, 2004. In fact, 

I just found out that this case was resolved last week after more 

than 11 hundred days. That is disgraceful. That is unacceptable. 

I’d like for you to tell Members of the Committee, do you have 

a plan for Atlanta? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, we have. Again, I share your feelings about 

the situation in Atlanta. It was the second hearing office that I 

went to. I went up to Boston first to get a handle on DSI, and then 

I wanted to see the worst places in the country, so I went to Atlanta second. 

We’ve hired as many ALJs as we have offices now. We’re looking 

at the possibility if the funding level comes through next year, we 

had plans last year for five new hearing offices that we scrapped 

because of the continuing resolution. Atlanta was on the list, and 

I would expect that Atlanta will be on the list next year. 

Atlanta was one of the three cities that we focused on with the 

National Hearing Center, so they’ve been getting relief through 

those video hearings. We’ve had our quality people going in on a 

special initiative to help prepare cases in Atlanta. Atlanta was one 

of the cities with the overtime at the end of last year, where we 

brought in people from operations, again to prepare the old paper 

cases and flush them out of the system. 

But Atlanta’s inexcusable. I don’t have any argument with you. 

In terms of backlog, they’re the worst in the country right now. 

We’re moving as fast we can to try to address that. I wish I could 

move it faster. I think you’ll see some real progress in about 6 

months. 

But I think that over the long run, Atlanta’s one of the cities I 

think as I mentioned before that is growing extremely rapidly. We 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

28 

had four cities in this country last year that added 100,000 people 

or more to the population. With all the incentives to keep the status quo in the system, it’s very difficult for us to move the resources into the places that need it the most, and it’s a struggle 

for us. 

But I do think that we’re going to need significant additional capacity in the Atlanta area. We’ve got two hearing offices downtown. 

I would suspect that the third would probably be in suburban Atlanta. 

*Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Commissioner, it is my understanding that 

two-thirds of all appeals are ultimately decided in favor of the applicant. So maybe the Social Security Administration is getting it 

wrong so many times. Following Mr. McDermott’s line of questioning, is it a way to get it right the first time? 

Mr. ASTRUE. That’s a very logical conclusion that people come 

to quickly, but I think it’s really not fair. A relatively small number 

of the claimants appeal in the first place. They are generally by 

definition the close-call cases, and there are a number of reasons 

why the decisions are different at the hearings level. One is if the 

condition of the claimant deteriorates, they may not have been eligible at the beginning, but particularly with the long waits, they 

are then eligible. They are often represented by attorneys at that 

stage, who are often critically helpful to claimants, not only in assembling medical records but identifying the impairment. A number of the people that get decision letters don’t even allege the disabling impairment at the first level, because there is some stigma 

or some emotional concern. I saw this in the video hearing I attended in Dallas, where it didn’t look like the claimant was going 

to win the appeal. I don’t know, I’m pretty sure that the person 

did. But what was most significantly disabling, she didn’t want to 

allege. The ALJ it out of her. 

So, part of it is this is our people doing their job. You know, the 

ALJs don’t represented just the Agency. That’s a historic and 

unique part of our system. They represent the claimants as well. 

A lot of times they pull out of the claimants, even when they’re represented, the real basis for the disability, or pull out the information that was not available earlier in the record to make a decision. 

Because the states don’t see the claimant; they’re doing a purely 

paper review. So, it does change the result to have that interaction 

at the later stage in a smaller number of the close-call cases. 

*Mr. LEWIS. Thank you. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I just may ask 

just—well, Mr. Chairman, I used my time. You’ve been very liberal 

with me. So, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. 

The next Member I want to introduce I want to thank, not just 

for his service to the Committee and for his service as Ranking 

Member of the Subcommittee on Social Security, but also for his 

heroic service to our country, Mr. Johnson of Texas. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate that. Commissioner, a recent inspector general report raised concerns about the performance of administrative law 

judges finding ‘‘that the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review’s ability to process projected hearing requests and address the 

growing backlog of cases will continue to be negatively impacted by 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

29 

the caseload performance of some ALJs if their status quo performance levels continue.’’ Subcommittee on Social Security Chairman 

McNulty and I have asked the IG to dig deeper into the performance issues and assess the ALJ management tools and practices 

utilized by the agency. Is it not true that some ALJs are doing 

nothing, zero, zip during the work day? I would like to know what 

action you are taking and what changes in the law we can make 

that would help that? If you would elaborate, I would appreciate 

it. 

Mr. ASTRUE. No, I would be delighted to. Let me first of all 

preface by saying the vast majority of the ALJs are solid professionals, behaving themselves well and trying to work productively. 

Mr. JOHNSON. What is the total number of ALJs? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right now, let’s see, we were down to about—we 

will correct this for the record, but we were down to about 1,025, 

we have 40 that came on board approximately last week. We will 

have a couple more classes coming in May and June, so we are 

hoping by the end of the year to be somewhere between 1,175 and 

1,200. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. JOHNSON. But I did not want to interrupt you, you are 

talking about a minimal problem but if it is 10 or 12 even, you are 

talking about people—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. No, let me separate it into two categories, although they do tend to overlap. We have had some serious misconduct issues, and we have had some serious productivity issues 

with a significant minority of the judges. Historically, I think this 

is part of the fallout from the eighties where Congress stepped in 

to correct certain problems in the system and protect the independence of the administrative law judges and generally I am supportive of that, but that has calcified into a lack of accountability. 

Many Commissioners have given up trying to discipline administrative law judges, and my feeling is that is wrong. If you are a 

judge, you need to treat claimants with respect, you need to treat 

the taxpayers with respect by putting in a full day, and we do have 

judges who do not do that. 

I have prosecuted this ALJ to the fullest so far and I am hoping 

that he will be terminated. He held two Federal jobs for 3 years 

and falsified military documents for the other job in order to pull 

off the fraud. He has not been contributing in Atlanta. So, a casual 

attitude toward misconduct has a bottom line cost for the people 

that we all serve. My feeling is these are test cases. If the Merit 

System Protection Board removes the judge, as we have asked 

them to do, great, then we have made progress. If they do not, I 

am going to come back to all of you and scream bloody murder and 

say you need to do something about it. 

We have had other serious misconduct issues. One ALJ one just 

pled to on a prostitution charge. We have had some assault issues. 

I think that is inexcusable for a judge and a judge who actually 

does that should be terminated no question, but the Merit Systems 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.003
30 

Protection Board has been extremely lenient on judges, which is 

why most Commissioners have given up. But we are not giving up, 

we have about a dozen cases over there now. We had one judge 

who had not done a case in seven and a half years and would not 

schedule cases, and I was advised that had to go through a redress 

program in order to make something stick. So, we have done that, 

we have been assigning hearings. He has been resisting. He has 

done a handful of cases now, I think they are all or substantially 

all allowances, so I am not sure he is doing the real work. I am 

going to stand up to judges like that, and it would be helpful for 

this Committee to have GAO take a look at some of these cases and 

look specifically at some of the cases that have gone before the 

Merit Systems Protection Board and ask the question are these 

one, two and three day suspensions that tend to be the most that 

the ALJs get in those cases, are they really adequate to protect the 

American public? 

Mr. JOHNSON. But the Congress is sitting here ready to help 

you and all you have got to do is ask. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Will do, and I think that we will have a lot more 

information shortly as to whether the MSPB is going to stand up 

in some of these atrocious cases. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. I think the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Social Security. Mr. Becerra may inquire. Excuse me, 

Mr. Neal may inquire. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, 

Commissioner. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. NEAL. Last week during tax disclosure time for the candidates for president, I must tell you I was delighted to read and 

then to hear that Senator McCain is a Social Security recipient. I 

offer that not as a political statement as much as it is an indication 

of what a policy triumph Social Security has been and its egalitarian nature. You know how ferociously many of us on this Committee guard Social Security. I think if there is one message that 

you would take from here, it is what the debate last year over what 

Social Security accomplished and it indicated very clearly that the 

American people were not about to forfeit Social Security without 

knowing what was coming next and the argument that many of us 

made was that we should add on to Social Security as opposed to 

subtracting from it. I think Senator McCain’s announcement last 

week that he was a Social Security recipient serves all of us very, 

very well. 

Let me be specific, my Social Security office in Springfield does 

a terrific job and there is great interaction. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am glad to hear that. 

Mr. NEAL. Well, I have great faith in them, and I must tell you 

that the role the constituent work plays in Social Security is vital 

and people do not start with a call to a congressional office, they 

end up calling a congressional office. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. NEAL. It is a very important consideration and they have 

been, as I have indicated, very good to work with. Let me see if 

I can cut through some of this though and maybe with a general 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

31 

question, you can shed some light on the issue of assignment as it 

relates to judges. Hearing offices around the country vary considerably in the size of their backlogs and the amount of time claimants 

must wait for a hearing. In some offices, the wait is less than 300 

days while in others it is approaching 900 days. In some offices, 

each judge has fewer than 300 cases pending while in other offices 

each judge has 1,700 cases pending. What measures do you take, 

and is it similar to the criminal justice system with Federal judges 

in terms of trying to seek a balanced workload that can be measured for Members of the administrative judgeship discipline? How 

did this balance happen? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, right. So, I appreciate that question. One 

of the things we laid out in the written testimony, which I believe 

is the first for the agency, that what has contributed to the very 

phenomenon that you are concerned about and Mr. Lewis is concerned about in district, of the resources that we have had, which 

have not been enough, we have mis-allocated them over time so 

that we do not have enough capacity in the right places and part 

of this is it does get politicized. When you are shifting around resources in Social Security, wherever you are taking them from, the 

Commissioner is going to get a hard time so it is easy to let the 

status quo go. But what we have been trying to do very systematically is to equalize the resources to a large extent around the country as best we can. So, in the allocation of the administrative law 

judges, I am unapologetic about the fact that some of the Members 

here are not getting much benefit, some are getting a lot. I am 

from New England, but I have no New England bias New England 

is only getting one. Ohio alone is getting 13. But the reason for 

that is if you look at the filings per administrative law judge in 

places like New England, southern California, you will see 300 to 

400 per administrative law judge. If you look at Mr. Lewis’ district, 

it is 1,200, 1,400, same in Cleveland and places like that, and I 

cannot justify that. So, in the allocation of the administrative law 

judges, we have realigned a lot of the service areas to try to help 

the struggling offices and also with the National Hearing Center so 

that we have got a centralized cadre of judges that can move into 

the worse backlog hearing offices like that because if you go 

through the traditional process, it can be two, three, even 4 years, 

before you get physical space up and running and moving and that 

is not fast enough. My term is over by the time that gets a benefit. 

That is not fast enough. 

So, we are really doing the three things, the allocation this time, 

we have looked very systematically at the regional imbalances, to 

the extent that we can, we have tried to fix that with this allocation. Second, we have done realignments, some of them are very 

creative, the Toledo remote site is now part of Boston and those 

types of things but those work and they are starting to help, and 

I think expanding the National Hearing Center is critical to this 

initiative. 

Mr. NEAL. What you briefly said was it is possible during your 

tenure that you could be there for the groundbreaking but not 

there for the ribbon cutting? 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is pretty close, Mr. Neal. 

Mr. NEAL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

32 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Neal. Mr. Brady may inquire. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may I suggest this is 

a critical round of questioning, both Mr. Lewis and Mr. Johnson I 

think ran out of time to really go deeper into their situations, perhaps at the end of this we might consider allowing both of them 

an additional round of questioning because I think both situations 

are worth exploring. 

Mr. MCNULTY. We will go back to allow Members to ask additional questions. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. Commissioner, two questions, one local, 

one national. In the Houston region in 2001 and 2002, we had serious problems in our disability offices, long backlogs, dramatic variance in disapproval rates and real concerns about whether there is 

minority bias in the decisionmaking. Since then, in the downtown 

office that handles our cases, my caseworkers tell me there has 

been a dramatic improvement in response time, the quality of the 

decisions and clearly they feel our people on the ground in our office—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is good to hear, I was holding my breath, 

thank you. 

Mr. BRADY. No, you need the experts and they are, but looking 

at the numbers for this year, we have two offices in Houston, one 

in downtown that goes east, one in Bissonnet that has the western 

side plus the northern area. The question I have for you, in one the 

downtown office processing time, backlogs are 50 percent better 

than in the adjacent office, even the judges according to the numbers you provided are more productive. The downtown office is 

third in the nation in cases pending in a good way, Bissonnet 33rd. 

The downtown office is top 10 in processing time, Bissonnet is far 

below average. My question is I understand the disparity nationwide, I do not understand the disparity in the same town. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is a very fair question. A lot of these 

issues you can talk about as if we were a big machine, and that 

is helpful, but one of the things to realize is that in each of these 

hearing offices, the key movers are the administrative law judges. 

It is a relatively small number of judges in each office. If there are 

human issues, performance issues, it has a pretty big impact on the 

area. So, it is our view that the issue with the Bissonnet office is 

a human issue. We have got three judges there that are historically 

very unproductive. We have several others being counseled by the 

Hearing Office Chief to try to improve their productivity. So, I do 

not believe that there is anything terribly significant in terms of 

resources or the demographics of the filing profile that account for 

any profound differences. Again, if I am wrong, we will correct it 

for the record, but I believe you have got three of I think it is eight, 

again I may have that wrong, judges where there are some significant performance issues and that hurts everybody. 

[The information follows:] 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.004
33 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. Would your office sit down with me and 

just dig deeper into this. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Gladly, yes. 

Mr. BRADY. Obviously what we want is if someone has got a legitimate disability claim, I do not want them going into a line that 

is longer and moving slower by 50 percent than their neighbor 

across the street. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. BRADY. Which is sort of the case today. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I do not want that either but, as I said, we have 

identified that there are some issues. 

Mr. BRADY. Right. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We are doing our best within the considerable constraints to try to deal with that. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you. National question, I think the additional ALJ electronic system of clearing off the aged cases, again 

a good decision, all those are helpful. Part of the problem has been 

I think too many cases make the ALJ level that should be resolved 

either through the quick termination or at the state level, and 

there has been wide variances in productivity and cases determined at the state before they get to the ALJs, have you been able 

to measure the variance between disapproval rates and productivity levels at the state level, and maybe more qualitatively, have 

you been able to measure the cases that should have been determined before they went to the ALJ—before they got into the line, 

the very long line, that could have been disposed of in either first 

two determinations, have you been able to measure that? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, there are some inherent difficulties comparing state to state performance but within those constraints, yes, 

we do. We measure again not by allowances or denials but we just 

look at accuracy, and we look at a sample of 3 percent of the cases, 

an equal number of allowances and denials, to try to make sure 

that we are maintaining acceptable levels of accuracy. There is a 

threshold on accuracy, which I think I recall but I will supply that 

for the record, where if a state falls below that, then we go through 

a rehabilitation process and try to do some intensive work to get 

them up to the same level of accuracy. In general, the states do a 

pretty good job. As a matter of fact, they do a very good job, and 

they do it with less money than we do. Their state workers tend 

not to be paid as well as ours, they have a lot of struggles with 

turnover of staff. In general, they do a very good job, they are not 

perfect. Generally, they maintain high levels of accuracy by our 

standards but there is a level of accuracy that is hard to account 

for because our people look at it based on the record that they had 

before them. If we do not get the right information there early, we 

can make a right decision based on the information we have but 

it is not the ultimate right decision so we cannot relax there, we 

have got to try to push as hard as we can to try to make sure that 

the full medical record is available for the claimant whenever we 

make a decision and that the claimant has alleged what the claimant should be alleging and that is a real issue in a significant percentage of cases. Such as those involving depression, sexually 

transmitted diseases. A lot of times the claimant does not come forward with what is really disabling. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

34 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. BRADY. Alright, thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Brady. Mr. Becerra may inquire. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, thank 

you for being here and to all your staff that you bring with you as 

well. We appreciate the work that you have done in trying to help 

us increase the resources you have to hire those ALJs that we all 

agree you need and that is about as positive as I am going to be 

in the 5 minutes that I have. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay, I understand, I am braced. 

Mr. BECERRA. You have I believe something in the order 1,300 

local or field offices throughout the nation to service people who 

come to the Social Security Administration, whether it is for disability claims, whether it is for retirement benefits, whether it is 

to get a new Social Security card, to renew an old one, to do an 

employment check, whatever it is, those 1,300 local field offices 

handle over 40,000,000 visits every year and it is probably going 

to increase once the Baby Boomers start to retire. My understanding is that the wait time for most Americans going into these 

offices, local field offices, is somewhere between two and 4 hours 

before they can be serviced by a live body in one of your offices. 

You can respond after I finish this. 

My understanding as well is that on average half of those people 

who make a phone call to a local office never get through because 

the phone is busy. Now, I could go on and on but what concerns 

me is not so much what we already know, that you do not have 

enough resources and enough staff and that is why people wait forever and that is why you have millions, thousands of Americans 

waiting years to get benefits on a disability. My concern is that 

your budget request for this coming year, 2009, is actually less 

than your budget request was for 2008. The President’s budget, you 

submit a budget to the President, the President then submits a 

budget to us, and then we pass a budget. The President’s budget 

for 2009 allocates more money to ALJs but it does it at the expense 

of the field offices that are overloaded to begin with, and so you are 

taking from Peter to give to Paul. So, far, you have closed two offices, local field offices, this year. Last year, you closed 17 field offices. You plan to hire, as you have testified, somewhere between 

175 to 189 administrative law judges this year. That is great, but 

you plan to hire 143 support staff for those AL judges. By your own 

accounts where you talked about having 4.4 support staff for every 

ALJ. If you are going to hire 175 to 189 ALJs but you are only 

going to hire 143 support staff, that includes the attorneys, the 

medical evidence technicians, all those folks who have to make the 

work work well for the ALJ so we do not have the abuse that some 

of our colleagues have talked about and the fraud, how are you 

going to do it when you have fewer support staff coming in than 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.005
35 

you have ALJs coming in when you need four support staff for 

every ALJ? Mr. Commissioner, this is not the way we should do 

business, something has to change. You need to shake things up. 

I am surprised at how sedate this hearing is. I cannot believe that 

we are here talking to you as if we are going to go through another 

day, and we can just go ahead and go along and get along. This 

will not change. We are talking about people in America who work, 

who worked in this country, this is not welfare. In order to qualify 

for disability benefit under the program, you have to have worked. 

Many of these people are in their golden age and now facing these 

disabilities and first they cannot go into an office without waiting 

hours before they can get service. Second, once they submit their 

claim, it may take them not just 400 some odd days that it takes 

in a LA office but in Atlanta it could take up to 800 or 900 days. 

You should be telling us, ‘‘Mr. Chairman, Members of Congress, 

this cannot go on. We are going to change this, we are not going 

to do it with a 5-percent increase or with 175 ALJs. We have got 

to shake this place up.’’ 

You parachuted in recently into a mess, so this is not directed 

at you personally as the Commissioner. This is directed at SSA, 

which for years submitted budgets which were too low, to an Administration, which for years has underfunded you, and to a Congress, which until last year underfunded you to the tune of billions 

of dollars, and so we are all complicit. Actually, those who voted 

for that are complicit. I did not support those budgets. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay. 

Mr. BECERRA. What I would say to you is this, as my time has 

expired and if the Chairman is gracious enough to give you time 

to respond, fine, but I do not see how we are going to get anywhere 

we need to go with folks who have waited 2 hours to get serviced 

in a local office or those folks who have waited 700 days to receive 

a benefit for which they worked and paid into the system for unless 

you tell us we got to shake things up. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay, I think I have got about 12 questions there, 

so I am not going to be able—you will have to remind me which 

ones I have, I am not trying to be unresponsive. So, let me just say 

as a predicate, most of your facts are right. The waiting times in 

the field offices are not anywhere near that bad. There are some 

really unacceptable—— 

Mr. BECERRA. Are you willing to come with me to one of the 

local field offices? 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. ASTRUE. We will supply the actual data. 

Mr. BECERRA. Are you willing to come with me to a local field 

office and see how long it takes? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay, we will set that up. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.006
36 

Mr. ASTRUE. I also say that I am aware that we have maybe 

100 to 150 offices where it is really out of control and they tend 

to be the inner-city offices and the border offices, and that is a direct consequence of the contraction of the funding and being in 

long-term hiring freezes. Unless you close a lot of additional offices, 

it is much easier when you are contracting to take employees out 

of the larger offices and that is what has happened. So one of the 

consequences of the freeze has been McAllen Texas and 125th 

Street in New York, those have some very unacceptable waiting 

times. I have been in some of those offices, I have not been in all 

of them, but I have been in some of them. So, yes, I am not denying—but it is not quite as broad as you indicated. It is not the routine office, it is more localized. 

Mr. BECERRA. Commissioner, if you bought a car, would you 

wait two years to get that car? If you bought a house, would you 

wait 2 years to be able to go into that house? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No. I am not justifying the status quo, we have 

been trying to change it but let me say a couple of things, and I 

hope as I am not taking any of this personally, you will not take 

any of this personally as well. 

[Gavel.] 

Mr. MCNULTY. If I could just suggest to my colleague that the 

time has expired, let us allow the Commissioner to make an additional response and then we will move on to the next questioner. 

As I stated previously, if there are Members who want to have a 

second round, we will entertain that. So, Commissioner, why do 

you not wrap up on this round? 

Mr. ASTRUE. So, in terms of being an advocate for the agency 

and being dedicated to get the proper level of funding, I will be 

quite honest, I do not feel like I have anything to apologize for because I walked into a situation where we were on a continuing resolution, we were on a full hiring freeze, we had furlough warnings, 

and despite the furlough warnings, Congress did not act and give 

us an appropriation. So, in that context when I made my first recommendation, which was for Fiscal Year 2009, I looked at what 

had been done and there was a very high request the year before 

and when I came up to talk to the key Members of Congress about 

that, they gave that the back of the hand and said, ‘‘That is a dead 

on arrival budget, we did not pay any attention to it.’’ Then I also 

looked at the 15 years where Congress came in below the President’s request and it looked to me like there was a pattern of Congress using that as a starting point as to how much lower they 

would go. So, in terms of my decisionmaking, I said how high can 

I make OMB go? I went for the number that I thought would work, 

it did. At 6 percent, we are way over almost every other domestic 

agency in the Federal government. We also worked with all of you 

and worked with OMB so there was no veto threat on the $148 million over the President’s budget and we got it. So, as far as I am 

concerned, on my watch, we have done pretty well-being an advocate for the agency and getting the adequate level of funding. 

I also think there is a changed environment. There is now concern about the work that we are not doing, in large part because 

we are telling you about it, which we were not doing before, and 

that may color what we do next year. But I think that what I did 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

37 

in terms of my recommendation and my advocacy was to get the 

best possible funding with all the constraints that we could, and I 

think we did it. So, I want to be very clear, I do not think I have 

anything to apologize for in that regard. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Becerra. 

Mr. Ryan may inquire. 

Mr. RYAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, I guess I 

will pick up where my friend from California left off, but first let 

me say I appreciate your just most recent explanation here, that 

was very telling, very helpful. Many of us who are strong fiscal conservatives, if there is one area where we think that more resources 

need to be deployed, it is this area, more ALJs, all of this. So, you 

need to use those of us here at this dais as advocates when it 

comes to this appropriations process, and that is just something I 

want you to do. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We have and all of you but particularly Mr. Johnson,—— 

Mr. RYAN. Yes. 

Mr. Astrue [continuing]. And Mr. McNulty have been just absolutely terrific. 

Mr. RYAN. Conservatives, liberals, Republicans and Democrats, 

we all—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Again, it is why I feel I can say I take no offense. 

I do not see the problem here but I think in terms of making the 

case more broadly to the Congress, we still have a lot of work to 

do. 

Mr. RYAN. Right, so let me get to my question. 

Mr. RYAN. I just have 5 minutes. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am sorry. 

Mr. RYAN. You have been parachuted in, you have put together 

a plan, you have to execute it, and I have three questions and I 

will ask them up front because this is something we are all experiencing. You mentioned in your opening statement that progress is 

being made in wait times for obtaining a hearing, however in Wisconsin, my constituents are experiencing an average wait period of 

620 days, as an increase of almost 33 percent over the 2004 levels, 

and it is an increase of 3 percent over last year. So, question one, 

what effect will these new initiatives, such as the Quick Disability 

Determination, have on reducing this wait time and when do you 

believe this effect will be seen? That is question one. 

Question two, because of the 5 minutes, I want to get through 

these. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. RYAN. As you know, the inspector general recently released 

a report on ALJ caseload performance that stated among other 

things that a substantial minority, I think 30 percent of ALJs, have 

not completed even 400 cases. In Wisconsin, for example, there is 

currently a backlog of 998 cases per ALJ. I understand some cases 

take a long time, low production numbers can be misleading, but 

is the SSA planning on taking any concrete steps within the constraints of the administrative procedures acts to introduce reasonable production metrics and standards? That is question two. 

Question three, another concern I have is the ratio of decisions 

of ODAR judges that they are issuing which appear to reverse the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

38 

state DDS’ determination. Approximately one-third to one-half of 

the ODAR level cases that my office assists constituents with end 

up in a reversal of the state DDS decisions. So, from an appellate 

level, that strikes me as a bit high, the reversal rate is pretty darn 

high. Is this rate of reversal proportional to other areas in the 

country? Does the SSA see a lack of uniformity in the application 

of standards by the various state DDS bureaus? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay, a lot there. 

Mr. RYAN. That is why I asked them all up front. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I know and, again, I apologize if I am not fully responsive, and I would be happy to supplement for the record. 

Mr. RYAN. I would appreciate that. 

Mr. ASTRUE. For the QDD and compassionate allowance cases, 

I think more than a lot of people recognize these are cases that 

have to a greater extent than people believe often gone off track 

in the system. When we have gone back, particularly at the less 

prominent cases, we have found that 20 to 40 percent of them either resulted in inappropriate denial or just took way too long to 

decide. 

Mr. RYAN. Twenty to 40 percent? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, they should have been easy cases. So this is 

why we are very systematically trying to identify these cases and 

just stop them from being a problem. It will make things a little 

bit more efficient at the DDS level, I think we picked up 6 days 

in average processing time last year. They were mostly other from 

factors. I think this will be marginally helpful in the time but the 

main reason you do it is just to make sure that these people do not 

get lost in the system. 

In terms of Milwaukee, my understanding is we are underresourced there and you will be moving from eight to 12 administrative law judges—— 

Mr. RYAN. By when? 

Mr. Astrue.—There are three classes currently being brought on 

board, April, May and June, that will bring us up to, it is a little 

bit of a moving target but about 135 are in those three classes. We 

are trying to get to the final at minimum 175, so an additional 40 

or so we should be hiring off the OPM roster by August. So, we 

should be up to a full 175 by August. 

Mr. RYAN. So, we should expect 12 in Milwaukee by August? 

Mr. ASTRUE. There may be a question if there is an August 

hire, it may drag because most of these judges relocate, but more 

or less yes. After the hearing, we will give you an update. I do not 

know the specifics of the particular slots that we hired in Milwaukee, but we will be happy to provide that for you. 

[The information follows:] 

In terms of ALJ productivity, it is a real issue in the system. We 

have established for the first time productivity standards for the 

administrative law judges in that we are expecting 500 to 700 

cases a year, a significant portion of them are not meeting that. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.007
39 

Mr. RYAN. Thirty percent of them are under 400 right now? 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is right. Right now, the challenge is to 

change the culture and for the most extreme cases, make it clear 

that they are at a far deviation from the standard. I think it is a 

dialog we need to have with the Congress as to whether we need 

to put more teeth into those standards. 

Mr. RYAN. These standards are now, they are out? 

Mr. ASTRUE. They are out, 500 to 700. 

Mr. RYAN. They are known? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. RYAN. What are the consequences and the incentive structures? Are they guidelines or strictures or what? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, I do not want to seem facetious, it is more 

of a guideline than a rule right now and, again, we are bumping 

up against a lot of the statutory requirements. 

Mr. RYAN. Right, that is why I asked the question. 

Mr. ASTRUE. But, yes, certainly in the extreme cases. We have 

a judge who has not done a case in seven and a half years, it 

should not be necessary but when you go to take disciplinary action, having a formal policy indicating the agency’s expectations 

are, will be helpful in some of those extreme cases. 

Mr. RYAN. You have a judge that has not done a case in seven 

and a half years? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, he is now because I am making him do them 

but he had not for seven and a half years. 

Mr. RYAN. He is still working for the SSA? 

Mr. ASTRUE. He had not for seven and a half years is my understanding. 

Mr. RYAN. He is still working there? 

Mr. ASTRUE. In terms of the ratio of reversals, again a relatively small percentage of the cases go up to the hearing, about 

one million claimants do not appeal their cases. We are a little bit 

stuck. If we had a low reversal rate, people would say it is not a 

fair process, it is not truly independent, and we would get criticism 

for that. In recent history, it has been about a 50 percent reversal 

rate. That has drifted up pretty much in tandem with the increase 

in the delays, and I think the primary reason why the allowances 

are going up is because of those delays, and they are just claimants 

with degenerative diseases and conditions that did not qualify but 

two years later do qualify. 

Mr. RYAN. Well, with the 620 delay, I can see the—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right. It would be logical to assume 

that the reversal rate will go down when we get those backlogs 

down. But I also do not want to mislead you by suggesting that the 

system is perfect. I think between the DDSs, the range on the 

variances when you really get deep into the numbers is pretty 

small. I think they do an outstanding job by and large. 

I will be honest, at the level of appeal, we do not do as good a 

job. If you look at the variations between administrative law 

judges, there is no justification for some of them. We have one that 

denies I think about 96 percent of the cases. We have a handful, 

10 to 15, I do not remember the precise number, we will supply it 

for the record, who allow approximately 95 percent of their cases. 

I do not think either is right. We have a statute that we have to 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

40 

adhere to. It is a tough standard, and there are some hard cases 

where as a human being you look at it and say that is a tough result but it is a statute, and we should be enforcing it, as you have 

told us to enforce it, and that is what I tell ODAR to do. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. RYAN. Alright, thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Ryan. Mr. Blumenauer may inquire. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Commissioner, for being here. I would like to I guess take up 

where my last two colleagues, we are not the worst in the country 

but we are about in the bottom 10 percent. I think we 131st was 

the last that I saw with over 700 days. I want to get a sense from 

you in an area where we do not have some of those dynamics that 

you are talking about, we are just playing sort of white bread, 

small metropolitan area, not with unusual characteristics, we are 

not really old, we do not have challenging populations. I am trying 

to get a handle on what I am able to tell people back home about 

why we are getting whacked around and what is going to happen 

about it for those of us who are not at the bottom but clearly unacceptable I am sure to you, certainly to me, and without question 

to the men and women who are trapped in this system in Portland 

and surrounding environments in Oregon. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. If you could excuse me, I have got one thing 

I want to check with my staff before I respond? 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Sure, sure. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I want to get the answer right, I have got some 

uncertainty on a couple of things related to Portland, so if you 

would indulge me, if I could answer that for the record, I want to 

make sure that we get it right. It is the right concern, and I am 

concerned about it too but let me make sure we get you a fair and 

complete answer and if we could do that for the record, I would appreciate it. 

[The information follows:] 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.008
41 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I defer to that, we would rather have an 

accurate answer that does not haunt you or me. I would like some 

extra special attention to make sure that it is aligned properly. As 

I say, ours should be a region, I do not understand the special 

stresses, the lengthy time, it is driving the people that we are 

working with crazy. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I do know, Senator Cantwell asked a somewhat 

similar question last year in a hearing before the Senate Finance 

Committee and one of the things that is true for the Seattle region 

is the productivity of the ALJs tends to be lower than most of the 

rest of the country if I remember correctly. It is not entirely clear 

why that it is true. In Washington state, I think the rotation of 

judges up to Alaska is a factor, and we are trying to get a handle 

on that. But I am not sure—— 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I do not want mousetrap you, I respect 

your kind offer to spend a little extra time to try and get the facts 

nailed down. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I have also just got a note. One of the things I was 

checking here that was in my chart did not look accurate, and I 

am glad that I checked. So, I do have—ODAR just told me that 

there are two additional judges coming in Eugene and two coming 

in Portland, so there is some help coming. It may not be adequate, 

but we are going to do the best we can as fast as we can. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.009
42 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Well, I appreciate to know that there is a 

little help on the way, and I appreciate your kind offer to double 

check to make sure that we have got the facts and the situation 

in place and look forward to working with you and the agency to 

make sure that these people are properly served. Thank you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you, and we are happy to do so. We have 

sat down, particularly recently, with a number of the Members of 

the Committee to talk about the situations in their states, and we 

would be happy to do that for you as well. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. I look forward to scheduling a few minutes 

to follow up to see what we can do together. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Great. 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Mr. Linder may inquire. 

Mr. LINDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since the beginning of 

this hearing was used to blame Ronald Reagan for this crisis, let 

me just deduce some facts. It started in 1980 when Jimmy Carter 

agreed with two chairmen to increase the FDIC insurance from 

$40,000 to $100,000 and let us sleep a little less and it will become 

development companies, creating a huge market and jumbo CDs. 

Bill Frenzel proposed a solution to that four or five years later, and 

it would have cost $8 billion, it was turned down. That is just to 

put some facts on the table. 

Now, on to our subject. I want to follow-up with what Mr. Ryan 

first raised, between December 1 of last year and April 22nd of this 

year, 17 of 18 appeals that we had before ODAR reversed, and it 

strikes me that somehow or another you need to inform me of the 

front-end or the back-end of this process. That is a 94 percent reversal rate. 

I want to raise an issue that is going to come before us shortly 

that and that is Mr. Schieber is going to report that a national Research Council report highlighted real vulnerabilities facing the 

agency if a systematic transition has not begun more moderate infrastructure including moving away from COBOL, a 1950s system, 

to a current technology. For a five year period ending in 1998, Congress gave $900 million to the agency and dedicated investment to 

information technology, what did you do with the $900 million and 

are you going to be looking for more? 

Mr. ASTRUE. The agency has made some significant investments in IT; we could not deal with hundreds of millions of American and their records and their service needs each year without 

relying on IT. I do think that some of the criticisms of the National 

Academy of Science report are well-founded. I think that the agency got comfortable with the COBOL technology and that the funding issues made it unrealistic to find a way out. I do think that we 

are to some extent painted into a box. For a number of the peripheral systems—— 

Mr. LINDER. Excuse me, just a moment. If you are comfortable 

with a COBOL-based system, and you may be the only people still 

using it—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am not telling you—I am saying we have been, 

I think my systems people will tell you I am on their case on this. 

We have about 36 million lines of COBOL code, and the question 

is how do we get rid of as much of it as quickly as we can. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

43 

Mr. LINDER. The point is if you want to move this country and 

you to an electronic-based medical records system, you are not 

going to be able to do it with that system. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, so we have moved increasingly to webbased systems, we are making some progress but given the huge 

amount of code that we inherited, it is going to take some time. 

One of the reasons, one of the things we would hope to do if we 

come to agreement with the states on the state system is move it 

out of the 54 separate—every time we make a change in state disability determination systems, Bill Gray and his people have to do 

54 separate COBOL programs amending the status quo, and it is 

incredibly time consuming, expensive and it is a real issue going 

forward. We have been negotiating with the states for about 9 

months to see if we can come to an agreement on specifications to 

go to a web-based system or something else that is non-COBOLbased that is unified around the country. It would be an enormous 

step forward if we can do that, and we are looking for other opportunities to do that, and we will have to ask for special funding from 

the Congress for most of the changes. 

One of the most problematic aspects of the NAS report is that 

the core of the system, which we call ‘‘MADAM,’’ is all COBOLbased and the magnitude of moving that system to anything other 

than what it is now. It is enormous. So I will be honest, we have 

got plans for a lot of the peripheral systems to move away from the 

COBOL. I think we are going to be able to do it on my watch. Technologically and financially, I do not think that on my watch we are 

going to be able to fix the issue with the core part of the program, 

but we have got to start a process toward doing that. That is probably a 10 year project and 10 years is probably past my half life. 

Mr. LINDER. Mine too, thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Linder. Mr. Pascrell may inquire. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner 

Astrue, am I pronouncing that correctly? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, you are. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You have been very forthright today. We have 

confirmed that we have a large backlog of disability claims, and we 

confirm that this has a tremendous impact on applicants, extending the time period, et cetera, et cetera. You have a plan to reduce 

the backlog, you relayed it before the Committee. What is the administration’s solution to this backlog since this has not just occurred in the last 6 months, this occurred over several years, has 

it not, Commissioner? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, it really started in 2001. 

Mr. PASCRELL. 2001. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. PASCRELL. More people come into the system. What is the 

Administration’s overall plan to deal with this tremendous backlog 

in your mind? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, it divides really into two categories, one is 

as I think we have said pretty forthrightly, in terms of resources 

we have had what economists would call both an allocation issue, 

we have not had enough, and a distribution issue in that we have 

not been putting it in the right places. So I think we have laid out 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

44 

a fair amount of detail in the written testimony how we have been 

trying to do that. 

Mr. PASCRELL. So, Commissioner, if you looked at the demographics back in 2002 and you saw the shrinking amount of resources, I am not talking about you personally. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You saw the shrinking amount of resources, one 

could very easily conclude that we are heading for a disaster here. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, in fairness to people who were here, I do not 

think it was clear in 2001 what would be happening in terms of 

resources going forward. I am not sure that people actually believed that we would be under-funded to the extent that we were, 

so in fairness to people,—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. You mean you think the administration did not 

know that, did not understand what the ramifications are? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think we understood, I think the people that 

were within the agency understood what the ramifications would 

be if Congress under-funded us to the extent that actually happened. It did happen but in 2001, I do not think in fairness to the 

people who were here, I do not think that they anticipated that 

that would happen. 

Mr. PASCRELL. There are quite a few Social Security disabled 

in New Jersey in my district. Do you know the situation at Newark, 509 days per applicant. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. PASCRELL. That is not acceptable to you? 

Mr. ASTRUE. No. 

Mr. PASCRELL. It is sure as heck is not acceptable to me. The 

Social Security disability backlog has caused extreme hardship. 

You have to talk to the caseworkers in each of our offices. They get 

no accolades because we think all the action is happening down 

here. All the action as far as I am concerned that is significant is 

happening back in our districts. These constituents are unable to 

work but still must pay for their medications. There are other 

healthcare needs. They have to pay for their housing, living expenses for themselves and their families while they wait months or 

even years for SSA to hear their case. One New Jersey resident 

filed for disability benefits in 2005 due to severe coronary artery 

disease, recurrent congestive heart failure, requiring a pacemaker 

defibrillator, diabetes, orthopedic impairments, hypertension, other 

serious ailments, his case is still pending before an administrative 

judge. This is cruel and unusual punishment. 

Another constituent who applied for benefits in has not yet had 

a hearing and his temporary rental assistance is being cut off this 

month. Without help from SSA, he is going to be homeless. The anecdotal stories here are not anecdotal, these are real people that 

have faces on them. I know you care about that, I really do. I do 

not think there is a person on this Committee who questions your 

loyalty to the task and your ability to move forward, but you cannot do it without resources. 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is right. 

Mr. PASCRELL. What we need is more people in your department to speak out against what I consider to be an atrocity, and 

I do not believe you closed 17 offices during this period of time. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

45 

Mr. ASTRUE. Well, actually to go through the numbers, we have 

in terms of a net, we went down I think just a couple of offices this 

year. We do every year and it is the exact same process that has 

been since the Carter Administration, although under my watch, 

we give more notice to Members of Congress than we have historically. Historically, we have only worked through district offices, so 

we now give duplicate notice to Washington offices as well. We 

typically for the last 30 years, contract about two to three offices 

a year. That has been pretty much the trend, it is the same process. The numbers you are hearing come from people that I think 

are trying to mislead you because just—they call a consolidation of 

two offices a closing, they do not look at the net because we open 

offices too. In fact, your colleague to your left, we had this conversation that part of the reason why we do this is that we have 

got places like Las Vegas and Atlanta that are exploding in population and if we have contracting resources, and we cannot move 

any of those resources, it means that Mr. Lewis’ constituents and 

Ms. Berkley’s constituents get short-changed compared to others. 

So, we kept it approximately level for a long, long time. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Well, then how many offices have you closed 

since 2001? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Net—again, we will give you the precise numbers. 

It is the exact same trend for 30 years. It averages two to three 

per years. There has been no significant deviation from that trend 

in terms of the net. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, this is the lowest amount of employees for the problem that we have in 32 years. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right and what that creates is—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. You cannot put icing on that one. 

Mr. ASTRUE. For Mr. Lewis and Mr. Rangel and the Members 

that have inner-city offices, I do not think that they fully appreciated that they take a disproportionate hit. Because if you cannot 

close the small, under-utilized offices, where we have lost a lot 

more employees and the people that are the most stressed now, 

and there are some exceptions from it, but it is the field workers 

in the inner-city offices and the major border city offices because 

we cannot create employees out of nowhere. If we do not have the 

money to pay for them, they disappear. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I agree. 

Mr. ASTRUE. So I do not think we have done anything radical. 

As a matter of fact, if you look at it in the big picture, it would 

not be unreasonable for Congresswoman Berkley to say to me you 

should close more so that you can—— 

Mr. PASCRELL. Commissioner, my point is that the administration has been, not you, your Administration has been—the administration, the people who hired you, that is who I am talking about. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I will be honest with you, I run substantially independently. No one has told me from OMB that I have to do this 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.010
46 

or do that in terms of offices. I come in and in terms of the hearing 

offices, the processing centers, and the regional offices—-I look at 

it and I try to balance it out to say, ‘‘ How can we serve the American people best?’’ One of the things that I think is a bit different 

from before is that we are trying I think a little harder to be fair 

regionally but that means that resources have to be moved from 

one place to another and if you are one of the locations that is losing a resource, I understand that people are unhappy about that 

but at some point, when you have a city like Las Vegas that is exploding, it is not fair to say that an office that serves four times 

as many people in Las Vegas than in some place in the East in an 

area that is not growing should not get more resources. So, a lot 

of the moving around has been part of an effort to balance things 

out geographically and the general trend. If someone is telling you 

we have closed net 17 offices last year, they are just wrong. 

[Gavel.] 

Mr. ASTRUE. That might be right, it averages two to three years 

and it has been about the same trend and in part it is a reaction, 

as you say, to the long-term under-funding of the agency. We have 

been forced to make a lot of hard choices, we do the best we can. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Thank you, Mr. 

Pascrell. Mr. Tiberi may inquire. 

Mr. TIBERI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner, for being here today and spending time with us on a 

very important issue. I represent a district in Columbus, Ohio, central Ohio, you mention it in your testimony and know a lot of people who work in the local office, and they are hardworking folks, 

overwhelmed doing their job representing or trying to help people 

throughout central Ohio. I would also like to thank some of your 

employees in Springfield, Massachusetts and Orland Park, Illinois 

and in Roanoke, Virginia. I am sure Ms. Tubbs Jones will thank 

them as well because Ohio in particular has been using this new 

technology to allow claimants to go before a TV set and give their 

testimony. But, as you know, we are being just slammed. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. TIBERI. Two years in central Ohio and now claimants are 

going before a TV set. I know you have addressed the situation or 

begun to address the situation, particularly in Cleveland but also 

a couple of judges in Columbus and a few in Cincinnati as well. 

You mention in your testimony that after you deal with Cleveland 

and Atlanta, you are going to deal with Columbus and Indianapolis, so one question is how are you going to do that? In doing that, 

are you also prepared to look at not just the judge issue but also 

the support staff issue, the hearing room issue and all the related 

issues that our constituents face because it is obviously not just one 

problem that we need to solve, it is myriad of problems throughout 

the entire system that a person is backlogged for two years on. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, so the good news from your perspective is 

we did look at the regional variations, and I believe that Ohio is 

the big winner in the country. 

Mr. TIBERI. Because we were the big loser. 

Mr. ASTRUE. You were the big loser before and that is right, 

and I think you have 13 administrative law judges coming into the 

state of Ohio, and so that is a first step. I think that you put your 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

47 

finger on having the ability to move quickly with the electronic 

hearings is critically important to addressing these backlogs and, 

again, because they can spring up very quickly. A lot of these offices are four or five or six people. You have a judge retire, you 

have a couple of judges that all of a sudden become dysfunctional, 

and it makes a huge difference in that local area. So, having the 

capacity to have some judges in a few central locations who can 

move quickly into the areas of worst backlog and help them out as 

we have been helping Cleveland out—— 

Mr. TIBERI. But you still need hearing rooms for the claimant 

to go to. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, that is right. In some places in the country, 

we are pretty well set for that but to make this easier, and I went 

through this with Mr. Levin personally a couple of weeks ago, Oak 

Park is a pretty bad situation as well and right now they do not 

have the hearing rooms equipped so that people can have electronic 

hearings from other locations. That equipment is being put in now, 

and there will be four of those hearing rooms in Oak Park. So, we 

have gone through a fairly systematic review of facilities with the 

new model of realizing that this is going to be part of what we do 

going forward to make sure that the physical space in the various 

hearing rooms gives us the opportunity to get help from the outside 

because it is critically important for the most backlogged offices. 

Mr. TIBERI. So, what is the plan? You mention in your testimony that Columbus, Miami, Indianapolis are next on the docket—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. TIBERI [continuing]. To address this problem, how do 

you—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right now, we have a pilot national hearing center 

with five administrative law judges just hearing cases from Detroit, 

Cleveland and Miami. We are trying to add another 14 between 

now and the end of the year. We are hoping that we can move more 

quickly than the norm because we are not trying to get new space, 

with all the contraction, we do have some excess space in some of 

our facilities and generally we can renovate space much faster than 

acquiring new space. So, what we are trying to do is expand in 

Falls Church, which is where ODAR is headquartered, we have 

been able to access some space. We believe we are going to be able 

to access space in the relatively short run in Chicago and Albuquerque, and so we should be moving up in the range of 20 to 25 

national hearing center judges fairly soon. Whether we can get 

them on board by the end of the fiscal year, we are not sure yet 

for all of them but we are going to try. 

Mr. TIBERI. Well, I hope you will allow me to follow up with 

your staff on Columbus and central Ohio as it progresses. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. TIBERI. I yield back. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Tiberi. Ms. Berkley may inquire. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and let 

me personally thank you for being so helpful to me and my office 

on this issue and many others. Thank you very much for being 

here, I enjoyed the meeting that we had in the library a few weeks 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

48 

ago, and I appreciate the forthright manner in which you are addressing the Committee. We all seem to be on the same page and 

have the interests of our senior and disabled population in our 

minds when we are discussing these issues. 

As you are well aware, Mr. Commissioner, my district of Las 

Vegas has one of the fastest growing senior populations in the 

country, therefore it is very important to me that the area field offices and the card center have the resources and personnel that 

they need to provide our seniors with the quality of service that 

they deserve and have earned. 

Since the Las Vegas card center opened last year, I have worked 

very closely with the Social Security Administration and our local 

employees in the office to address a number of the problems. You 

are well aware of the problems that we started with. 

Ms. BERKLEY. They range from inadequate signs, the first time 

I went to the Card Center, I thought I was going to a dermatologist 

office, and I am glad that we were able to fix that. There was insufficient seating for the elderly and disabled, people were standing 

for hours. There was insufficient staffing, long, long wait times and 

long lines where many of my—the lines were so large that they 

were going out the door and in 110 degree temperature having 

older Americans and disabled standing out in that heat was obviously very dangerous as well as unacceptable. 

I cannot thank you enough and after listening to all of my colleagues’ problems, I am a very grateful person but you have helped 

us to correct the majority of the deficiencies at the Card Center. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Ms. BERKLEY. We have added 70 seats, which makes a big difference, seven additional employees, all 19 windows are now open 

for service, wait time has dropped from well over two hours to less 

than a half hour, all of that is just wonderful. I do have still concerns that I would want to share with you. There is some concern 

about the Card Centers, and you know that even though the Card 

Center is centrally located in Las Vegas, it still services many of 

the rural areas that surround Las Vegas. I know that, although 

they are not my constituents, they are Nevadans, that they can go 

to their field office, there are hours but there only once a month. 

Perhaps, and listening to other people’s problems, this may not be 

as significant as some of the others but if you are one of the people 

living in these rural areas with no access, it becomes a problem, 

perhaps we can rather than once a month going to their field offices, perhaps we could make it a little easier by extending that to 

maybe twice a month if that is possible. 

Also, I received I would not say complaints but there are some 

concerns that the employees had a lot of overtime between January 

and tax day, maybe that is just standard operating procedure and 

maybe with the additional employees that have been assigned to 

Las Vegas, that problem will be eliminated, but I think I feel the 

need to share that with you. 

We also have one of the shorter waiting times for disability decisions with an average of less than a year, but having heard what 

some of my colleagues said, even a year in my opinion is a shamefully long time if you are waiting for these disability benefits. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

49 

But my question to you is this under the President’s budget, SSA 

would make progress in addressing the disability backlogs but it 

seems that it is at the expense of other areas, other non-disability 

areas. If this is the case, it seems that the backlog in other areas 

would rise dramatically, and we would lose ground in areas that 

we have really made some progress. Is that the case? What do you 

recommend and how much would it cost to avoid this decline in 

service to the public? How much more do you need? Perhaps Congress ought to take some responsibility for this, if you do not have 

the resources to do the job we are tasking you with, what resources 

do you need that we should be putting in your budget? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. I would like to give you a more detailed response for the record but let me give you a short response. This 

year’s appropriation, for which we are grateful, and the President’s 

budget for next year allow us to not only improve with the disability program but also to make some significant investment in 

systems, to bolster the field offices, to bolster the teleservice centers, so there will be continued improvement in the front line services. We have tried to be very transparent about what we think we 

are going to have difficulty doing, and we are trying to get to as 

many of those as possible. We laid those out in the President’s 

budget. We have actually made some progress in some of those 

workloads because we have had an unexpectedly large increase in 

productivity so far this year, so we actually are a little bit ahead 

of schedule on some of these back-end workloads. There is some 

softness in the numbers because we cannot track a lot of these 

things very accurately but it is in the range of $400 million in 

terms of the things that we are not doing in order to get staff up 

to that level. 

[The information follows:] 

Ms. BERKLEY. Was it $400 million or $400 billion? 

Mr. ASTRUE. $400 million. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Million; ‘‘M’’. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I think we deliver pretty good value for the money. 

The people work very hard, the systems are getting better and better to make them more productive, and so you get a lot for your 

dollar in my opinion in Social Security. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Let me ask you one other question, I just did not 

understand if that is $400 million over—— 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Ms. BERKLEY [continuing]. The budget? 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.011
50 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, we identified the workloads where we did not 

ask for the money this year so that Congress would understand 

what choices we were making in terms of the prioritization. If they 

thought we made inappropriate prioritizations, you have the information to choose differently. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Ms. Berkley. Ms. Tubbs Jones may 

inquire. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Good afternoon, Commissioner, how are 

you? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I am fine, thank you. How are you? 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I am doing very well, thanks. How long 

have you been in office now? 

Mr. ASTRUE. About 14 months. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. About 14 months. I guess our first meeting 

was not probably the most exciting of your meetings, and I really 

do want to compliment you on the work that you have done, and 

I could put up statistics that justify the additional six judges in 

Cleveland. I want to thank you for them, and I will not put the statistics on the record, you already know them. I was so excited to 

be able to say some wonderful things to you but do you know what? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Oh, do not spoil it now. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Enjoy that moment because I am coming 

after you right now. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I know, I know. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I was a judge for 10 years, Commissioner, 

and I have been working the 10 years I have been in Congress with 

administrative law judges of the Social Security Administration, 

and you just threw them under the bus. You just threw those 

judges who do such a wonderful job under the bus by talking about 

one who has not heard a case in seven and a half years, by talking 

about another, I do not even remember what the heck you said 

about them, but I wish—see, I have learned that when you oversee 

a group of folks that not only do you challenge or chastise those 

that cause problems, you spend as much time saying great things 

about the people who keep the ship up when they do not have the 

kind of support that they need. I think that if you said it, I missed 

it, so I am going to give you the opportunity to say it again, the 

great work that the administrative law judges who are there, who 

are handling the kind of caseloads that they have, do a great job. 

I think you owe it to them, Commissioner. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I have answered the same type of question several 

times from different angles. I have said here, first of all, the vast 

majority of them do great work, and I said that here earlier. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Say it again so all those administrative law 

judges can hear you say that, the vast majority of them. 

Mr. ASTRUE. The vast majority of them do great work. Then 

also in particular I gave them credit. This is a year where we have 

seriously had contracting resources in ODAR, and the progress on 

the backlog is pretty stunning. The increase in the pending is coming down dramatically and it is because not just the ALJs but the 

attorney advisors, the support staff, the whole team, they are working together as teams. The productivity is up about 10 percent, at 

least in the measure that I consider most important, and I know 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

51 

some of the staff behind me has differences of opinion, they have 

different measures. But if you look at dispositions per ALJ per day, 

and again that is attributing the attorney-advisor decisions and 

those things to them, they are up about 10 percent this year. The 

backlog would be a lot worse without that improvement and there 

have been some particular offices that have been historically problematic that have done terrific work. But I do feel that I have to 

identify that there is a minority, it is 5 to 10 percent, where there 

are both conduct issues and productivity problems. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. That is what I want, that is what I want 

you to make it clear for the record because there is 5 to 10 percent 

and that means that you have a 95 or 90 percent staff who are 

doing a great job. It is important to me. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Trust me, we are absolutely on the same wavelength. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Okay. 

Mr. ASTRUE. But you are in at the point now where I believe 

in Cleveland you will have 15. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thank you. I am going to stand up and say 

thank you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. If you have one who is not carrying weight, you 

might not see that much of an immediate impact but for some of 

the other Members here, we have offices in—— 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I do not want to get lost in that, I do not 

have a lot of time. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay, right. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I just wanted it to be clear. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Alright, I think we are in agreement. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Okay. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Tell me, there is one other area that I have 

some concern about, and I would ask you to take a look at it, would 

you? Ohio is one of those states where there was a higher than average first time approval rejection, am I saying that correct? 

Mr. ASTRUE. I understand. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. You understand what I am trying to say, 

right? 

Mr. ASTRUE. The denials are higher. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. I mean denials, yes. I am not asking you 

necessarily to give me an answer today, but what I would like to 

have happen is to have a look at not only Ohio but other places 

across the country where we seem to have that, can we figure out 

what that can be attributable to. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. It is a great question, we are getting it from 

a couple of other Members as well. That statistic looked at in isolation can often be very misleading because the composition of the 

filings, the demographics are very different from state to state. Interestingly, some of the states with the lowest allowance rates, 

which should give you, it is a first level cause of concern and you 

are asking the right question. But when you look deeper, they are 

putting a higher percentage of people on to disability than most of 

the states with very high allowance rates and part of that is—and 

I know there has been some criticism of insurance companies lately 

on this point but in my world, what I hear anecdotally from people 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

52 

on the line is that a number of states have policies that refer people to us and make us make a decision before they get state benefits of one kind or another and it is a budget device. What that 

means is that we get a lot of people that probably should not be 

there in the first place that have to go through our process to comply with state requirements. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Well, then what I would ask you to do is 

for someone in your shop to work with us to see if we can address 

that particular issue. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Because it then becomes your business because it is in your shop and it may well be the business of the particular state, and we have an obligation to sit on the state agencies 

as hard as we sit on you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right, so we will—I accept that as a charge, so we 

will look at that. We will give you as much detailed information 

about Ohio policies as possible so you can decide whether—— 

[the information follows:] 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Who I want to beat up in Ohio. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Ms. TUBBS JONES. Thanks, Mr. Commissioner. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Ms. Tubbs Jones. We have now completed the first round. I think there are just a couple of requests 

for follow-up. I think Mr. Brady had a follow-up question. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief and thank 

you for the courtesy by the way. Commissioner, I know that earlier 

this year, you suspended a proposed rule dealing with reforms of 

the inefficiencies of the appeals process, and I know you have been 

having conversations with various interest groups on those rules. 

I want to encourage you to do that, but I hope you understand that 

a number of us want you to pursue reforms in the appeals process. 

No reasonable person can justify the system we have today. We are 

not seeking efficiency for efficiency sake. We are seeking a quicker 

appeals process that is fair and more accurate and hopeful that if 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.013
53 

we can do it as efficiently as possible, other resources can be used 

to quicken the process and make it more fair and accurate throughout the whole system. So, I hope you will continue to pursue the 

reforms that Congress needs to take. 

Secondly, I appreciate the straight talk about our administrative 

law judges or any other part of the system. We have needed this 

for a long time to improve the system. It may not be comfortable 

but whether it is, we have some judges or staff or whatever who 

are not productive and a Congress that is not providing you the resources you need, we need to hear that type of straight talk, so 

thank you. 

Final point, in the system today, just looking and reviewing the 

original definition of ‘‘disability,’’ clearly medical advances, occupational advances, the fact that a quarter of the jobs we have today 

did not even exist 25 years ago. There are now opportunities where 

people who would be disabled and have no chance for a work life, 

today because of advances in medicine and technology are able to 

do that. At the DDS level, has there been an effort to expand beyond just the medical diagnosis of disability to incorporate occupational experts who can identify a potential work life that a claimant could have so that we are looking at disability in the 21st century, occupational disability rather than just as a medical issue as 

it was originally I think probably developed? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, good questions. So, in terms of the regulation 

question, I am proud of the fact that we have made an enormous 

amount of change in the last year, 99 percent of that has been relatively uncontroversial. We got caught off guard on the objections 

to a couple of the provisions of this regulation. I still think on the 

merits, we were trying to do the right thing for the right reason 

but the costs of having the argument are not worth it. We have had 

pretty good discussions with the advocates, and we think actually 

there may be—it may be 18 months down the road but there may 

be some better ways of getting to substantially the same result 

once we have better systems, and we can do queuing theory for 

docketing and that type of thing. So, we are hoping, we are not giving up, we are going to try to get to the same general result 

through a different process. 

In terms of medical advances, I probably should not say things 

like this but actually I think one of the things you should have 

been critical of the agency for many years is we have not been good 

enough about keeping up. One of the reasons why cases are decided 

wrongly by the DDS is we do not give them clear enough guidance 

or updated enough guidance. We have had regulations on our listings issued on my watch that had not been updated since 1979, 

1985 for the digestive listing and that is not acceptable. Right now, 

we are on a five year schedule for every regulation. If you look at 

the docket, you will see we are issuing a lot more regulations in 

the medical area than we have historically. We are doing every five 

years now, we hope to actually do every three years, I do not know 

if we are going to be able to get there. But I think that is critically 

important, and we are making it harder for that staff because we 

are asking them to go to a level of detail that they have not gone 

down to before. We have typically stopped at a fairly high incidence 

rate. If you look at the cases that go off track, a significant percentmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

54 

age of them are ones where it is not the DDS’ fault, it is our fault 

in Woodlawn because we have not given them sufficient guidance. 

Mr. BRADY. I guess the question is more directly did DDS examiners and ALJs have access to the occupational experts who can 

help determine if there is a work life that is available to a claimant? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. To a large extent, yes, although there is an 

issue in some places in quality and quantity because I think we 

have not increased the compensation for these folks for decades. 

We are hoping to do that for both the medical and the vocational 

experts. We also need to do better in the vocational area. We have 

relied historically on a guide produced by the Department of Labor, 

which they have decided not to produce anymore, so we are going 

to try to take that over and not only update it but improve it and 

adapt it more for our purposes than what the Department of Labor 

does. So, I do not think it is a crisis in terms of where we are, but 

are we at best demonstrated practices? No. Can we do better? Yes. 

Are we trying to get there? Yes. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

I believe Mr. Becerra had a follow-up. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner, again, 

thanks very much for your time and all the responses and please 

continue do the work. As I said to you, I did not have a lot of space 

in my 5 minutes for good news, but I think in every respect your 

responses prove that you are trying to do what you can personally, 

Michael Astrue is trying to do what he can as the Commissioner 

to make changes, so we appreciate that. I urge you to continue to 

be candid with us. As I said, I urge you to shake things up. When 

you come here, shake them up not just internally but when you 

come here shake them up. Recognize that you have to obviously get 

your paycheck but if you do the right thing, you will get paid more 

than just with a paycheck, so I just urge you to continue what you 

are doing. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. We have been doing a fair amount of 

shaking up. We have been trying to do it as politically sensitive 

away as possible. I also should say I have really been blessed in 

that we have put together a fairly new team. There has been a lot 

of shaking up within the agency, and they have just really come 

together and done an absolutely first class job, This agency is too 

big for any one person to change, and I give a lot of credit to a lot 

of the people sitting behind me and some of the people who are not 

here today. 

Mr. BECERRA. I would love to see it register on the Richter 

Scale so you keep at it. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay. 

Mr. BECERRA. Support staff? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes? 

Mr. BECERRA. You did not have a chance to get to the question 

to answer because I ran out of time but I do not know how much 

you can give us now but perhaps in writing give us a more elaborate response but I am very concerned that as you hire the ALJs 

that we know we need, you will not have the support staff. You already do not have the support staff, so to hire at less than a one 

to one ratio when you need a four to one or so or five to one ratio. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

55 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes, so let me give you the short answer. We will 

give you a longer answer for the record because I do think that 

some people, their heart is in the right place, have misunderstood 

some of our budget numbers. So, one of the things that we did even 

in a time of contracting resources, we realized that the judges cannot do the work without the support staff, and we knew approximately when the judges were coming in. To make it as seamless 

as possible, we advance hired support staff in anticipation of the 

new ALJs to some extent. So, on my watch we started at 4.1 support staff per ALJ. Unlike a lot of the rest of the agency, that did 

not go down, that went up. So, that went up to about 4.4. When 

the new judges are absorbed and with the hiring that we also are 

doing of support staff, we will be back down to about 4.1. 

[The information follows:] 

Now, an interesting question is that the right number or not? 

For the time being, I think that will work. But one of the things 

that we do not know and what we want to be a little careful about 

over hiring. The profile of staffing you need is going to change fairly dramatically when you move from an antiquated paper system 

to a relatively good, admittedly needing some improvements of the 

electronic system profile of people and the number of people that 

the old studies from 1991 indicated really do not make any sense 

anymore. So, we are looking at that. 

Mr. BECERRA. Okay. 

Mr. ASTRUE. But we understand how important they are. 

Mr. BECERRA. Please and if you can just elaborate more in 

writing, that would help us to understand how you are going to do 

it. 

Mr. ASTRUE. We would be happy to do that. 

Mr. BECERRA. Field offices, do you have any plans to close any 

field offices this year? 

Mr. ASTRUE. My understanding is that we do not have any 

plans pending other than we worked through local communities 

and the political leaders. We do some consolidations and that type 

of thing. We do relatively few over the objection of Members of 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.013
56 

Congress and political communities. There are none of that profile 

now. There are some routine consolidations going on and, again, I 

do not know. I do not get terribly involved in this process, the career people run it. Your best guess is that the future is going to 

look like the past. The net, there will be about 15 to 20 offices that 

are affected in some way. Net is at the end of the year we will be 

one to three fewer probably, but it might not be that many. There 

is no goal or anything like that. There has been I think some very 

regrettable partisan attacks saying that there are plans to do something that is a huge break from the past, and we are going to cut 

half the offices, and I just want to denounce that here. I think it 

is being done for partisan purposes. It scares employees. It scares 

the public. I think it is shameful. So, again, I have been up explaining this over and over again. It is no different from when I 

started. It is no different really since the Carter Administration, it 

is going to be about the same. 

Mr. BECERRA. Then on that, again, if you just keep us informed. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Will do. 

Mr. BECERRA. Perhaps in writing give us a more elaborate answer to that. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. ASTRUE. Would be delighted. 

Mr. BECERRA. Finally just a quick comment, on the appeals 

process, I want to say thank you very much for taking a breath before you move forward in instituting some of the changes that have 

been proposed to the system, which many of us believe could have 

hurt the process because it would have made it more burdensome 

upon the claimants, the beneficiaries, so we appreciate that and we 

hope you will continue to keep us apprized and all the stakeholders 

apprized and allow them to be a part of any system that you ultimately recommend. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I should also note by the way I was out in one of 

the hearing offices in your district just a couple of weeks ago, 

which is the historical low performer for about a decade in the system, and we sent them a signal that things needed to change. I 

have to be honest, I was dubious that would happened but if you 

actually look at the statistics in your Pasadena office, there has 

been a remarkable pick-up in the last six months. The spirit there 

seems to be very different and so in terms of—part of this, as you 

were saying, is cultural and insisting on change. So, at least, I 

think you have got about four hearing offices in the vicinity of your 

district, one of them has really made a pretty substantial improvement in the last six months, so it can happen. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.014
57 

Mr. BECERRA. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, thank 

you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Becerra. Mr. Meek may inquire. 

Mr. MEEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been in a couple 

of meetings in my office, but I have been listening to some of the 

questions that I wanted to raise here that have already been raised 

at least eight or nine times. You have been very skillful, Mr. Administrator, of trying to give the same response. But let me just 

say this very quickly, all of us are victims of closing of offices and 

also backlog of hearings or appeals, I have a two to three year 

backlog. As you know, myself and Congresswoman Debbie 

Wasserman-Shultz and Alcee Hastings from south Florida fought 

vigorously to keep the Hollandale Beach office in my district open 

to provide services for the people of south Broward County in Florida—I mean in Hollywood, Florida. But I wanted to ask the one 

thing I did not hear, and I was checking with my staff, have you 

all researched in any way possible some sort of information that 

can be gathered so we will not have so many of these appeals to 

try to cut them in half because right now the backlog as we look 

two to three a year, what kind of work has gone into trying to— 

I even heard your response about a person who was a judge and 

has not heard a case in seven some odd years, but is there anything being done outside of making sure that all hands are on deck 

to hear these cases to clear up the backlog or seeing if some of 

these cases can be resolved prior to a full blown hearing? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Sure. Again, that has been an important part of 

the initiative and it gets complicated, so with your permission I 

will supplement for the record but let me give you the short answer. We have two I think successful to date initiatives at ODAR 

to essentially take those cases out of the system and decide them 

quickly. One is we have gone back to a Clinton era initiative, that 

I am not entirely clear why they terminated, that gave more authority to attorney advisors to get rid of cases of certain profiles to 

just allow them—— 

Mr. MEEK. I am sorry, you said attorney advisors? 

Mr. ASTRUE. Attorney advisors, we have lawyers who work essentially like law clerks for our judges in the hearing offices and 

when I came, they could not decide anything, they only could draft 

for judges to decide. But a lot of the judges are overloaded and 

some of evidence cases changed. Maybe a technical issue that has 

changed. There are categories of cases that we do not need to bother an administrative law judge for, so in these cases the Attorney— 

advisor program has been reasonably successful. I think that program is actually continuing to add improvements. 

Our Office of Quality Performance has been instrumental in 

helping us design templates where we can now analyze the caseload electronically and look for markers that suggest that this 

might be a case that is off profile, that needs more development or 

should just be allowed, and we have taken those cases and generally sent them back to the DDSs for a decision, a lot of those 

cases are allowances. 

[The information follows:] 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

58 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.015
59 

We are also, as I mentioned to the Members of for the Michigan 

delegation, in those states that do not have reconsideration, it is 

probably more likely that there is a higher percentage of cases 

going to ODAR that probably should not be there in the first place. 

So we are looking at some new screens and we are up and running 

I think in June and July in Michigan to try to see if before those 

cases ever get into ODAR at all, whether they should either be sent 

back to the DDS or they should go to ODAR with the suggestion 

that they should consider a prompt allowance. 

Mr. MEEK. Let me ask this question because, as you know, we 

are under time limits. Have those reforms as it relates to taking 

down the backlog before you get to a full blown hearing, I heard 

you talk about the fact that the appropriations process has not 

been helpful, and I am pretty sure the Office of Budget and Management has not been the best friend in the world of setting the 

stage already. 

Mr. ASTRUE. I actually do not have any complaints about the 

OMB. I will be honest we did better with them than I thought we 

would. 

Mr. MEEK. Okay, but it is not the ideal world that we need to 

get us out of the hole. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Not the ideal world. 

Mr. MEEK. So, I guess has this been highlighted in your request 

this year of saying these—especially with the backlog issue, are 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.016
60 

these issues Congress you can look at in helping us deal with the 

backlog because if that is—if these reforms are working, then these 

are the things that we need to look to in the short term, especially 

under these budget restraints that we are under now, of how we 

can deal with some of those cases. My wife is an administrative 

law judge, and I can tell you right now, not for you all, I just want 

to clarify that. 

Mr. ASTRUE. My wife used to be a Democratic staffer for a Congressman. 

Mr. MEEK. I just want to clear that up, but I think it is important that we look at these, the things that are working maybe 

below the radar screen but would help break down the backlog because I can tell you right now, I have constituents coming into my 

office saying, ‘‘I do not know why I am coming to see you because 

you have not been able to do anything about my problem.’’ 

Mr. ASTRUE. Right. 

Mr. MEEK. So I am thinking that if we can get that, if someone 

from your staff, at least for me, I will be an advocate as it relates 

to the appropriate appropriations Committee of dealing with this 

and saying we need to pinpoint money right here so that you have 

the kind of army you need to deal with those cases and set them 

on priority, you may be able to clear a lot of them. 

Mr. ASTRUE. That is a great question, I would be happy to work 

with you on this. One of the things that I think is important to 

keep in mind is that for the first part of this decade, the backlog 

was going up pretty consistently about 75,000 cases a year. In my 

first fiscal year, that dropped to about 32,000. I think annualized 

right now, and I will correct this for the record if I am 

misremember, we are at about 24,000. It is not where we want to 

be. We have had fewer resources, and so there should be real 

progress when the resources come. Those initiatives that we put in 

to try to put our finger into the hole into the dam right from the 

get-go, I think have been working pretty well. We may need your 

help on some of these. So, for instance, I think the attorney—advisor proposal initiative has been helpful, it is a factor in keeping the 

backlog down. Right now, it is a sun-setted regulation so that will 

come up for permanent extension with the new Administration 

and, as undoubtedly you know, I am going to be inflicted on the 

next Administration. I think it is highly likely that we are going 

to want to work with the new Administration to make sure that 

that program is extended at a minimum and maybe we will want 

to expand it in certain ways. I think it is going to be important 

probably for some Members of this Committee to be fluent on what 

we are doing, satisfied that we are doing the right things and help 

us with the new Administration, whoever it is that is trying to figure out what to do. We are doing the right things here on some 

of these and where we are going to need help with the new OMB. 

[The information follows:] 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.017
61 

Mr. MEEK. Well, thank you so very much for your response. Mr. 

Chairman, I thank you for your work in this area. As you know, 

I am the only Member from Florida on this Committee, and with 

all of the folks that we have involved in Social Security, you know 

this is a majority priority for us, so thank you, and I look forward 

to working with your staff. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Meek. If there are no further 

questions, we will close the first panel. On behalf of Chairman 

Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery, I want to thank you, Commissioner, for being with us today for your testimony. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. For your hard work on this issue and for staying 

with us for about three hours to answer our questions. Shortly, we 

will adjourn the first panel, and I will turn the Chair over to Dr. 

McDermott, who is going to chair for the second panel. But before 

I do that, Commissioner, I know that you are very serious about 

tackling this backlog problem. You have shown that, you have demonstrated that by your actions, and we have been there to try to 

help you with the additional money in last year’s budget, even 

more in this year’s budget, and we want to keep moving in that direction. I know you have looked at this problem from the perspective of the agency, and I know you have traveled around the country to look at it from the perspective of our constituents, the American citizens. I just want to leave you with a thought about looking 

at it from our perspective, the representatives of the people. One 

of the things that we kind of pride ourselves on when we serve in 

elective office, and I have served in elective office for 39 years, is 

that when a constituent comes to us and asks for help, that we get 

them an answer in a timely fashion. 

Mr. ASTRUE. Yes. 

Mr. MCNULTY. We have all had the experience of having constituents come to us, meet with us face to face with what seems 

to us to be a very obvious case where they deserve these benefits, 

which they have paid for, and we respond back to them, ‘‘We will 

get back to you with an answer in a year or two years or more.’’ 

This is an example of government at its worst. It is an embarrassment to us as representatives of the people. Many Americans are 

suffering because of what has gone on in the past with regard to 

this backlog issue. I am one that does not tend to look backward 

and try to assess blame as to how we got into the situation that 

we are in, I want to look forward and figure out how the hell we 

get out of this thing and get back to a position where we are properly representing our constituents and making sure that when they 

are entitled to benefits from their government, which they have 

paid for, that they get them in a timely fashion. So I exhort you 

today, Commissioner, to keep doing what you are doing, let us 

know when we need to do more because we want to step up to the 

plate and make that happen. Also that we all be on guard to make 

sure that other peripheral outside issues do not end up interfering 

with this modest progress that we have made up until now and 

which we hope we can accelerate in the weeks and the months and 

the years ahead. Thank you, Commissioner. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

62 

Mr. ASTRUE. Thank you and I agree with you 100 percent. 

Again, thank you for your support, Mr. Johnson’s support, the support if the entire Committee has been vital to help turning around 

things, and we are going to count on you at least as much going 

forward, so thank you. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Commissioner. We will hear from 

the second panel and Dr. McDermott will assume the Chair. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT [presiding]. The Committee will come to 

order. Witnesses on the panel would take their seats at the dais, 

we welcome you and we also are grateful that you have stayed, 

waiting three hours. You have now heard from the administrator 

and the Committee a variety of perspectives about what the problem here is and what ought to be done and so forth. You have all 

submitted testimony to the Committee, and without objection, your 

full testimony will be put into the record. I would hope that as you 

testify here, you do not merely re-do what is in your report because 

it is already there, and what we would like most from you is to respond to what you have heard so far. I think that although there 

are just a few Members here, there are plenty of staff listening and 

so this is an important learning experience for us, to hear your response to what the administrator said. I hope that with that in 

mind, you will adjust your testimony. I know after you have spent 

all that time belaboring over it, it is desirable to come and read it 

to us but do not please. We really want to hear what you have been 

thinking about for the last three hours as you have sat and listened to this hearing. 

We have today with us Mr. Schieber, who is the Chairman of the 

Social Security Advisory Board, and we will start with you, Mr. 

Schieber. If you will press the little green button there in front of 

you, I think you can probably get on the air. 

STATEMENT OF SYLVESTER J. SCHIEBER, CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Mr. Chairman, Mr. McCrery, I want to thank 

you and all the Members of the Committee for holding this hearing, 

this is extremely important. I have been on the Social Security Advisory Board since January of 1998. The first report we wrote when 

I joined the Committee, the Advisory Board, was on disability. I 

think we have done some 15, 16 reports, statements, major statements on the disability program since then. In many regards, we 

have known for quite a long time about the problems that we are 

talking about today. They were on the horizon long before they got 

here. 

I think as you think about this problem and how to address it 

and some of the issues that were raised in the earlier discussion, 

we need to think about this as a process from beginning to end. 

Part of the problem here is that there is no one single owner of the 

process throughout its various stages. You start with your application at the DDS level but that is really not a single process itself. 

There are 50 states, each has its own independent DDS. In addition to the 50 states, we have got four other systems, one for the 

District of Columbia, one for Guam, the Virgin Islands and Puerto 

Rico. Just in terms of operating systems, there are three broadly 

used systems but then two of the states have their own hybrid sysmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

63 

tems that they use. Even as they implement them on single platforms, there are variations from one state to another. 

We heard a bit this morning about the need to move away from 

COBOL. The Social Security Administration, as they move into the 

electronic age, has been forced to cannibalize operating budgets to 

try and move out of the fifties technology platform that they are 

on and that has simply not been enough. They recently moved to 

the electronic disability folder and now virtually all of their applications are taken in electronic form. But to a considerable extent 

they cannibalized their operating budgets during the period they 

were developing that. 

A number of years ago, I was doing a presentation, I have 

worked in the private sector over virtually all of my career for a 

major investment organization, and the chief executive officer was 

doing a presentation for all the senior Members of their staff, and 

he was talking about literally spending billions of dollars to invest 

in the new technology platform. They were not cannibalizing their 

current operating budgets, the people with money invested through 

them had to be able to check on what was in their accounts during 

that period of time. They were making a capital investment and 

they were going to amortize that over a period of time. 

I think if you want to address the problem we have here on the 

system side, literally moving from the fifties into a more modern 

era, you may need to think about moving in that direction to deal 

with this problem. It does not necessarily need to be a long-term 

added commitment, it needs to be a capital investment with accountability, that they need to put together a system that starts 

from the beginning and is thought through all the way to the end 

of the process so there is actually integration. When we think 

about the DDS system and the 54 systems or whatever they have 

there, they are hooking up to Social Security systems and those 

have not been integrated in the way that they should. So, as they 

move into the new era, they ought to figure out how to integrate 

those systems. 

One of the other major issues that they face as they move into 

the new era are productivity issues, and I raise that in my testimony and it came up a number of times here today. There was an 

article in the Federal Times last week about ODAR, Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. A number of their people have become upset as they have implemented the electronic file that they 

no longer can work at home as much as they used to. They cannot 

have as many days when they are not working on site in the office. 

The reason for that is all of the concern that we all know about 

with electronic files, and because Social Security is determined to 

maintain for the security of these files, they have to be kept secure 

computers. But as they have moved to processing electronic files, 

that is now required that people work in the office more than they 

did in the past and there has been a complaint filed and the mediator has found in favor of the worker. So, we are forcing the agency 

to deal with again fifties processes, revolving around paper files. In 

fact I am not sure paper files are any more secure at home than 

computer files but that is another story. 

We heard some concerns about ALJ productivity. There are a 

couple of issues on ALJ input productivity. One of them has to do 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

64 

with how many cases these ALJs hear. There are quite a substantial number of ALJs in 2006 that I know of that handled fewer 

than 200 cases. The Commissioner has now said that he would like 

for the ALJs to handle as many as 600 or 700 in a year. He is 

going to need to be able to encourage and actually enforce that 

kind of productivity if he is going to achieve what he is trying to 

achieve. 

But there is another issue here, there is also an output productivity concern that we all need to have. There is a group of ALJs 

on the other side of the productivity equation, a group of ALJs that 

is hearing massive numbers of cases. In 2006, there was one that 

disposed of 2,500 cases. Think about handling 2,500 cases, these 

are complicated cases, in the period of a year, and one of the things 

that I know is that as the disposal rate goes up, the approval rate 

goes up and that should be a concern to all of us. 

I have looked at the corps of ALJs, the ones in the 240 to 700 

case disposition a year, and I have found judges that have an approval rate of 30 percent, I have found judges that have an approval rate of 99 percent. Now, I think both of those numbers are 

wrong. I think that if there is a judge that is not approving cases, 

that probably there are people who are worthy of getting these benefits that are being denied. But when we approve cases on a 

rubberstamp basis and we are not paying attention to the law and 

we are not paying attention to the facts, we are giving away money 

that is very substantial that we owe the taxpayers some concern 

about. 

The average cost of one of these cases, lifetime cost, is well over a quarter of $1 million dollars. We need to be wary about the 

issues that we are facing and that is part of the stewardship issue 

that has been raised here a couple of times this morning. One of 

the issues on stewardship that you need to focus on, I know there 

is a difference between operating budgets and trust fund money, 

but time after time when we have looked at the stewardship issues, 

the review of disability cases does catch individuals who do not deserve to be receiving benefits who are receiving them. The estimate 

by the Social Security actuaries is that for every dollar we spend 

here, we return $10 to the taxpayer. But we have canceled doing 

much of this work in recent years because of the other burdens 

that the system is trying to deal with. This is pound penny wise 

and pound foolish. I would think that if you went home and tried 

to explain this to your constituents, you would have a hard time 

convincing them that this is good policy. 

So, I guess my comments, and I will close here, are that we first 

of all need to think about this on a holistic basis, maybe we need 

to make some capital investments so we can get out of some of the 

morass that we are in. We cannot cannibalize operating budgets. 

The Commissioner is dealing with this massive backlog of cases, 

but if we want to move into the 21st century, we have to bring on 

new systems and they have to be systems that are based in the 

current technology and they have to be coordinated from beginning 

to end. I will close in saying in my opening comments, I said in 

some regard this reminds of the story from Greek mythology, Sisyphus. As I say, I have been on the advisory board for 10 years now, 

we have been look at this issue all of that period of time. We have 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

65 

pushed this rock up the hill time after time, but it seems to keep 

rolling back on top of us and it is time that we all start thinking 

about this in a much more logical and smarter fashion than we 

have been. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Sylvester J. Schieber follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Sylvester J. Schieber, Chairman, 

Social Security Advisory Board 

Chairman Rangel, Mr. McCrery, Members of the Committee. I am pleased to have 

this opportunity to appear on behalf of the Social Security Advisory Board to discuss 

the backlogs in the Social Security disability programs as well as the current funding situation. I would like to give you the Board’s perspectives on the continuing 

challenges facing the agency and our concerns about the future. 

As I reflect on the current state of affairs at the Social Security Administration 

I am reminded of Sisyphus from Greek mythology. As you will recall, the gods condemned Sisyphus to endlessly pushing a rock up a hill only to have it roll down 

again and again. It strikes me that this is exactly what is happening to the employees of the Social Security Administration who are charged with running the disability programs and the citizens who are touched by it. We owe them a better future. 

Is History Being Repeated? 

The difficulties with the disability program are not new to the Advisory Board. 

Since the Board’s inception in 1995, the bulk of its work has focused on the disability program. I personally have been on the board for more than 10 years now 

and it has been our major preoccupation over my entire tenure. Beginning with one 

of the Board’s earliest reports in 1998, we expressed concerns about the sustainability of the program given the anticipated growth in the workload, its resources, 

its labor intensive processes, and the perceived lack of consistency in applying Social 

Security’s own policies. And that was at a time when there were only 1.2 million 

new claims filed every year, and the backlog in the hearings process was under 

400,000 claims. Moreover, this was after a period when the agency had diverted resources from other parts of the program in order to return the appellate process to 

a semblance of efficiency. 

But by 2001 the Advisory Board felt compelled to issue another report citing deteriorating service in the field offices and a disability program that was swamped with 

a backlog of claims. By 2001, Social Security’s capacity to serve the public was increasingly at risk due to a long-term reduction in staff levels, increased volume of 

claims, and the overwhelming burden of complex program rules. The then-Chairman 

of the Advisory Board told The New York Times in February 2001 ‘‘Unless there’s 

fundamental change, we will soon see disruptions of service. The Social Security 

agency lacks the ability to handle existing workloads, and those workloads are 

bound to increase in the next decade. Everybody knows there is a long-term deficit 

in the financing of Social Security. But there’s also a deficit in the agency’s ability 

to provide good service, and that should be equally alarming to Congress and the 

public.’’ 

When I appeared before the Social Security Subcommittee in February 2007, applications for disability benefits were averaging 2.5 million per year. The Disability 

Determinations Services (DDS) had a little less than 550,000 initial claims pending. 

But this DDS pending backlog was due to extraordinary pressure on the DDSs to 

adjudicate initial claims as a priority workload. What gave the impression as being 

good customer service at one stage actually resulted in increased workloads and delayed processing downstream. Resources were diverted from processing reconsideration cases in order to process the initial claims. The backlog at the DDS’s reconsideration stage grew by 30,000 and an ever-larger fraction of individuals found themselves waiting nearly 6 months for an initial decision. 

On average, about 75 percent of those denied at the reconsideration level file for 

a hearing before an administrative law judge. So, it should be no surprise then that 

as the DDSs cleared out their backlog of reconsideration cases, cases flowing into 

the hearings level climbed to 579,000. By the end of 2007, there were 746,000 cases 

in the hearings queue waiting for an ALJ judgment. 

Today, we are half way through Fiscal Year 2008, a year in which the Congress 

actually increased the President’s budget request by $150 million. The additional 

funding has provided SSA with some flexibility this year. The SSA managers have 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

66 

not had to choose between hiring administrative law judges and keeping the lights 

on in the field offices. I would like to tell you that this one time injection of additional resources has been enough to turn the tide. But it has not. 

Today there are over 560,000 initial claims and 107,000 requests for reconsideration pending in the DDS and another 756,000 claims at the appellate level. I suppose that if there is any ‘‘good news’’ it is that the waiting time for a hearing has 

held steady at 503 days in the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. Personally, I believe that taking an average of 503 days to process these cases at the hearings level should be an embarrassment to us all. 

The Social Security Administration’s employees have always taken pride in their 

‘‘can do’’ attitude even in the face of growing workloads, new workloads, and insufficient resources. But the reservoir of optimism is low. 

We can talk about our commitment to public service and our willingness to address the needs of those individuals who turn to Social Security on a daily basis. 

But the reality is that thousands of disability cases languish for years as the claims 

representatives, the disability adjudicators, and the administrative law judges 

struggle with crushing backlogs and steadily declining numbers of workers. If we 

want to achieve the goals of this program, we have to pay for it. 

Pressure on the DDS has Negative Affects on the Hearings Level 

The focus of this hearing—clearing the backlogs and providing adequate resources—needs to be about more than just the state of the workload at the hearings 

level. It must take into consideration the critical steps all along the determination 

process. It must recognize the problems with the systems infrastructure that supports the work being done by staff at all levels. It must acknowledge that the baby 

boomers that will cause problems for the retirement program down the road are now 

in their disability prone years resulting in increased applications that would require 

higher productivity if the workforce handling cases remained stable. But it has not 

remained stable; we have seen the result of the triple jeopardy: a workforce that 

is being shrunk relentlessly, steady workload increases, and a lack of technological 

investments that could balance demands. 

DDS claims processors operate under processing time, productivity measures, and 

quality control rules that put unreasonable stress on their process and, as a result, 

change behavior. Forcing managers to choose to adjudicate one type of claim, whether it is an initial claim or a request for reconsideration, over another sends a very 

strong message about their relative importance. Moreover, a quality review process 

that targets allowance decisions almost exclusively also sends an unintended message. Only a small fraction of denied cases are selected for quality review. The 

chance of an insufficiently documented denial determination sliding through the system unchecked cannot be discounted. There may be many reasons why there has 

been a steady decline in allowance rates in the DDS, but it certainly seems likely 

that inadequate investment which has led to a ‘‘start and stop’’ type of work environment is a major factor. This is not about a culture of denial but more about 

human nature. When faced with pressure to clear cases quickly, adjudicators may 

take shortcuts and those shortcuts can lead to unintended outcomes. 

One of the initiatives in the Commissioner’s Plan to Eliminate the Hearings Backlog is the informal remand process. Cases that were denied by the DDS and are 

waiting for a hearing at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review (ODAR) 

are being screened and where appropriate returned to the DDS for another look. 

The program has been in place for about a year now and the cases that are sent 

back have been purposely selected because they are the most likely to be proper allowances. Nonetheless, out of the 34,000 cases informally remanded so far, the 

DDSs have allowed 43 percent and well over two-thirds of those were allowed without any additional development. There are a variety of reasons why these cases are 

now being approved without gathering more evidence than was gathered months or 

years ago, but we cannot discount that processing pressures in earlier stages of adjudication could have caused inadequate review the first time around. An added sad 

footnote to this story is that some of the cases now being given a favorable disability 

determination after being remanded to the DDSs sat in the hearings queue at the 

ODAR level for three or four years before being returned for DDS review. Of course, 

this gives rise to the question: If we had enough evidence years ago to decide that 

these applicants were disabled, why didn’t we reach the conclusions then? 

From the Board’s perspective, there must be investment in the front end of the 

process. SSA and DDS management should not have to make choices about which 

cases are adjudicated timely and fully developed and which are not. But that is the 

situation in which the disability system managers continue to find themselves. 

SSA has made tremendous strides in the development of the electronic folder. For 

all of its strengths, it has some striking weaknesses; primarily that it is not a ‘‘sinmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

67 

gle system’’. Case production processes are not coordinated from beginning to end. 

First, there are 50 state DDSs plus five other territories and offices working with 

five different basic IT operating systems. Even in cases where DDSs are on a common main platform, there have been variations in their adaptation from one DDS 

to the next. While all of these operating systems and their variants feed data to the 

electronic folder, the actual development and decision analysis is captured only in 

each DDS’s own case processing system. And beyond that, there is virtually no endto-end consistency in developing and adjudicating cases. 

The main goal in initiatives like the development of the electronic applications 

folder may be to drain the backlog swamp, but there are so many alligators nipping 

at the various components they have lost focus on the way forward. Consider the 

development of an approach to support the systematic case determination process 

for the DDSs. To this end, an electronic tool, known as eCat, was created to help 

adjudicators develop claims on a consistent and complete basis. The budget to develop this system was cannibalized from the Social Security operating systems budget resulting in a patchwork approach to development and support. Robbing Peter 

to pay Paul is generally a recipe for failure, but it is particularly unwise in systems 

development. 

The eCat system was rushed through development, was unfinished at roll out, did 

not work when it was put into production and brought the rest of the electronic case 

processing system to a grinding halt. As a result, a promising new tool was pulled 

from operation because of poor execution and the rush to premature implementation. Today, there is a new initiative underway in a lab environment that appears 

to hold great promise, but it is not clear how it will be integrated into an overarching integrated system. 

While the eCat experience is disconcerting, we recently learned that the Office of 

Disability Adjudication and Reviews is evolving its own electronic adjudication tools 

to take advantage of the electronic folder, including a format for decision writing 

that is designed to bring greater consistency and improved productivity. It appears 

that ODAR has only cursory awareness of the DDS eCat initiative and has had no 

input into its development even though they are the ‘‘recipients’’ of the decisional 

outcomes. Furthermore, they have not been able to explore how eCat can lead to 

efficiencies in the hearings development process. There appears to be a lack of a holistic electronic systems strategy that is linked to a well thought-out process structure, that is properly resourced and that emphasizes the interdependence of the operating components. 

Building an Infrastructure for the 21st Century 

Ten years ago the Advisory Board questioned how well the Social Security Administration would be able to develop the technological infrastructure that would be 

needed to support the growing number of claims. We believed then as we do now 

that in order for the agency to meet its workload challenges, it must have a forward—thinking service delivery strategy that capitalizes on advances in technology. 

The National Research Council issued a very compelling report last year wherein 

they stated that the agency faces fundamental challenges in its ability to deliver 

services and urged SSA to articulate a vision for electronic service delivery. 

Furthermore, they highlighted the very real vulnerabilities facing SSA if they did 

not begin a systematic transition to a more modern infrastructure. This is not about 

buying the latest fancy personal computers. This is about moving away from 

COBOL-based operating systems, a 1950’s technology, to modern software languages 

and tools. This is about moving away from manual work sampling to integrated 

data collection that permits inline measurement and quality review systems that 

can assess what works, what does not, and the difference between the two. We are 

talking about the potential for redesigning work in an organization that is stifled 

by institutional barriers between components and work rules that are crippling productivity advances. 

When Social Security Commissioner Michael Astrue took over his current position, he found a backlog of disability applications that had been in the ALJ hearings 

queue for more than 1,000 days. Last year he set as a goal for the agency disposing 

of all of these cases. This year, he has set as a goal eliminating the backlog of some 

135,000 cases that would be 900 days old at the end of the fiscal year. Commissioner Astrue and the people involved should be applauded for implementing any 

effort to reduce hearings backlogs and waiting times for decisions. 

Yet we read in the Federal Times last week that a group of Social Security employees has filed a complaint against the agency because the implementation of the 

electronic disability application process has reduced the number of days that case 

technicians in the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review can work at home 

as they help prepare cases for ALJ hearings. In this modern era, with concerns 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

68 

about the security of private personal information in government files, Social Security has determined that applicants’ electronic files must be maintained on agency 

computers and the implementation of the new technology has reduced the amount 

of work that can be done outside of office sites preparing cases. The mediator hearing this complaint has ruled that Social Security must reinstate the work-at-home 

policies that were workable in the old paper-file world but outmoded in the modernized environment. 

One cannot help but wonder whether the taxpaying public might find it ironic 

that it is unreasonable to expect people who are being paid to prepare disability 

cases for hearings to come to the office to work during the time they are being paid 

but that it is reasonable to expect disability applicants to wait up to 899 days to 

have their appeals for benefits heard by an ALJ. The parsing of this story may help 

to explain why all of the leading candidates for President from both political parties 

have sensed the American public’s desire to change the way things are done in 

Washington. 

We are painfully aware that future Congresses and Administrations will be facing 

resource constraints that will become more austere than anything we have seen to 

date. Rather than commit to long-term increased support of what is an unsatisfactory process for the stakeholder at all levels, maybe it is time to restore a temporary 

multi-year capital fund to modernize the functions at all levels of this operation and 

develop systems to implement the solutions. This capital budget would be for limited 

duration and come with a stipulation that the net results be a modern integrated 

system that delivers efficiencies in the operation, increases throughput of workloads, 

and shortens the processing time for applicants. If there is need for legislative action to modernize and facilitate the determination process as part of this modernization effort, the agency should come forward with recommendations to achieve this. 

Invisible Workloads 

In the Advisory for this hearing, the Committee noted that the agency is forced 

to divert resources away from routine workloads in the processing centers in order 

to manage the volume of cases awaiting decisions. This is an unfortunate trade off 

to be forced to make. Without adequate funding for the post-entitlement work done 

in the processing centers, the spouses and children of disabled workers may not receive their benefits in a reasonable timeframe. Beneficiaries who report earnings on 

a timely basis may be overpaid because the workers in the processing center could 

not reconcile the information in time to make the needed adjustments. SSA estimates that it will cost around $400 million in FY 2009 just to keep on top of this 

backroom work, annually, without consideration of what work is already unresolved. 

Unless there is sufficient investment in this workload, the post-entitlement backlogs 

will be the next headline. 

As the agency that touches virtually every individual in the country through its 

benefit programs or through its repository of records, SSA is the agency that Congress turns to when it needs assistance with carrying out broad national initiatives. 

The welfare reform legislation in the mid-1990’s meant that the field staff had to 

become experts in immigration and naturalization records; Medicare Modernization 

rules mean that they now have to make more complicated Medicare premium calculations based on complex tax rules, and they have acquired an ongoing workload 

comprised of determining the qualifications for Medicare Part D low income subsidy 

redeterminations. And now there is discussion about adding additional non-mission 

workloads revolving around immigration and Medicare. 

Historically, Congress funds the start-up costs for these programs but does not 

make provisions for the ongoing costs of doing the work. The agency is expected to 

absorb the cost in the out years in its ‘‘base’’ budget. However, because fixed costs 

such as rent, guards, and salaries exceed the average growth in the administrative 

budget, there is no cushion to absorb additional work without additional resources. 

These workloads must be funded appropriately and that includes for the long term. 

I would like to add a word of caution, however, that this is about more than just 

money. I know that one of the reasons that Social Security is assigned these tasks 

is because they have the critical national mass that does not exist elsewhere. And, 

they have an outstanding workforce. But the accumulation of these added mandates 

is reaching the point of critical stress for this agency—we are perilously close to 

adding the proverbial straw that breaks the spine here. 

In my testimony before the Social Security Subcommittee last year, I pointed out 

that SSA has been forced into curtailing its stewardship responsibilities even 

though that workload returns benefit savings that are many times its administrative costs, $10 in savings for every $1 spent. By the end of this fiscal year, it is 

estimated that there will be just around 1.3 million claims sitting in a backlog that 

should have these reviews performed. I realize that there is a budgetary distinction 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

69 

between administrative and benefit spending, but that is an artificial distinction 

that most taxpayers supporting Social Security would consider ludicrous. You might 

want to support an incentive-based stewardship approach whereby the Agency can 

retain a percentage of such stewardship savings. Abandoning the ability to minimize 

improper payments is not only wasteful, but will worsen the future year total deficits that will constrain future discretionary spending. 

Maintaining Public Service in an Era of Growing Workloads 

Over the next 10 years, SSA’s workload will increase dramatically. Retirement 

claims will jump by over 40 percent and disability claims will rise by nearly 10 percent. Last December there was much fanfare as the first of the 80 million baby 

boomers applied for retirement benefits. The agency expects to process 4.3 million 

claims in 2008 and is bracing itself for a 23 percent increase by 2013. The recently 

released 2008 OASDI Trustees Report estimates that by 2015 there will be 50 million retirees, widows and widowers, and dependents receiving benefits and they will 

be expecting efficient and modern service from the Social Security Administration. 

But the anticipated growth in claims does not stop there. The baby boomers are 

entering their disability prone years and the number of initial disability claims is 

projected to rise steadily from 2.5 million to close to 2.7 million by 2013. Unless 

there is a fundamental rethinking of the definition of disability and how this vital 

safety net fits into the 21st century, the Trustees tell us that the number of disabled 

workers receiving benefits is projected to grow from 7.1 million at the end of 2007, 

to 8.7 million in 2015. The ‘‘silver tsunami’’ of the baby boomers will most assuredly 

place a tremendous strain on SSA’s resources unless the shortfall in funding and 

the need for modernization are addressed. 

Long-Term Solvency 

I hate to remind the Committee about the grumpy uncle whom no one wants to 

claim as part of the family, but I feel obligated in my position to raise with you the 

issue of the long-term solvency of this vital program. 

The recent Trustees Report might seem to suggest that the outlook for financing 

has improved relative to earlier measurements. The better estimates in this year’s 

report relate largely to changed assumptions about immigration levels and do not 

change the underlying story about the challenges that our nation’s demographics 

pose for Social Security. Disability is part of that demographic challenge. 

An aging population brings with it greater incidence and prevalence of disability. 

In this regard, the Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Fund component of the system 

is underfunded and the funding of DI is a problem that will need to be addressed 

by Congress. The timing of the disability funding shortfall precedes that of the Old 

Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. Thus, any surplus that might be 

viewed in OASI as a buffer will be short lived. The contingencies regarding disability and the related work limitations are substantially different than in the case 

of the Old Age insurance program and they deserve careful consideration. Resolving 

the disability financing situation and any reforms that might go along with it should 

not be an afterthought in the solvency discussion. 

Mr. Chairman, I hope these comments are helpful to the Committee as it examines the backlogs in the disability programs and addresses the need for increased 

resources in order to support them. These critical safety net programs have been 

a major concern of the Social Security Advisory Board and we intend to keep a close 

watch on them. I would be happy to provide any additional information that may 

be helpful to you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

f 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Marty Ford, who is the cochair of the Consortium for Citizens 

with Disabilities Social Security Task Force. 

Ms. Ford? 

STATEMENT OF MARTY FORD, CO-CHAIR, CONSORTIUM OF 

CITIZENS WITH DISABILITIES SOCIAL SECURITY TASK FORCE 

*Ms. FORD. Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify. 

As you know, Social Security and SSI benefits are the means of 

survival and a lifeline for millions of people with disabilities. As 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

70 

you know, the delays and the backlogs are intolerable. When a decision is appealed, people can wait years for a hearing, but they 

also wait additional time for a decision, and then again wait for the 

actual payment of benefits. That needs to be kept in mind. In the 

meantime, their lives are unraveling, their families are torn apart, 

their homes are lost, their health deteriorates, and some people die 

before a decision is made. 

One of the CCD Members, the National Organization of Social 

Security Claimants; Representatives conducted a quick survey of 

their representatives to get an update on how the backlogs are affecting people. My complete testimony has stories from 29 states, 

and I want to mention a few. 

A man from Brooklyn, New York who has major depressive disorders and other conditions requested a hearing in March of 2004. 

The hearing office failed to send him a notice, and the hearing was 

dismissed when he did not appear. He obtained an attorney who 

asked to reopen the case. Following a hearing, the ALJ issued a favorable decision. He got his first SSI payment four and a half years 

after his appeal. While waiting, he lost access to medical coverage, 

his attorney helped him prevent eviction, he went to food pantries, 

and he actually had to borrow money to ride the subway to his 

hearing. 

A Florida woman’s disabilities stemmed from a shooting and 

chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. After her claim was denied, 

she requested her hearing in April of 2006. Nearly 2 years later, 

just this March, the ALJ allowed benefits. Unfortunately, she died 

before receiving the written decision. While waiting, she lived with 

her mother who has dementia and chain smokes. About a week before her death, she told her attorney that she believed she would 

die if she could not get into a smoke-free living situation. Her attorney believes that her compromised living situation due to lack 

of income shortened her life. 

A 61-year-old Michigan man requested a hearing in September 

of 2005. His case was transferred to another hearing office because 

of an overload in the Grand Rapids office, and a hearing was held 

in 2007. Over two and a half years after his request, he received 

a favorable decision in February, but as yet he has received no benefits. His is dependent on his children to pay his bills. 

I could go on, and as I said, my testimony contains a number of 

these examples. These are just a few of the claimants who have 

faced real hardship and the time constraints here don’t allow me 

to fully convey the pain and anguish that they and their families 

have endured. 

As has been fully discussed today, the problems are due to the 

lack of funding for the administrative process for SSA. We think 

that the President’s budget request for fiscal 2009 does not go far 

enough. Even under that budget, SSA predicts a combined shortfall 

of 8,100 work years, 8,100 work years short for fiscal 2008 and 

2009. At the same time, SSA must continue to streamline and operate more efficiently. Commissioner Astrue has indicated that the 

agency has begun a number of initiatives to expand technological 

and other improvements. 

My testimony includes additional recommendations for improvements in developing evidence earlier in the process, and we think 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

71 

1 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 

Continued 

that this is one of the keys to why some of these cases go on too 

long. In the case examples, there are many that are listed as having on the record decisions. While some of that may be due to the 

fact that the person’s condition has worsened, advocates are reporting that in many cases, some of this evidence should have been obtained earlier in the process if it had been requested or if what was 

needed had been explained to the providers and to the claimants. 

In all the initiatives, we think care has to be taken to determine 

how any process change will affect the claimants and beneficiaries 

for whom the system exists. People who find they cannot work at 

a sustained and substantial level due to disability are faced with 

a host of personal, family, and financial circumstances that impact 

how effectively they can maneuver the system. 

SSA must continue to improve its role in ensuring that an individual’s claim is fully developed before a decision is made, and we 

urge Congress to provide SSA with the resources necessary and 

provide over and above that which the President has asked for, as 

SSA needs it. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Marty Ford follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Marty Ford, Co-Chair, Consortium for 

Citizens with Disabilities Social Security Task Force 

Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery, and Members of the House Ways 

and Means Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify at today’s hearing on 

Clearing the Disability Backlog—Giving the Social Security Administration the Resources It Needs to Provide the Benefits Workers Have Earned. 

I am a member of the public policy team for The Arc and UCP Disability Policy 

Collaboration, which is a joint effort of The Arc of the United States and United 

Cerebral Palsy. I serve as Chair of the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities 

(CCD), and also serve as a Co-Chair of the CCD Social Security Task Force. CCD 

is a working coalition of national consumer, advocacy, provider, and professional organizations working together with and on behalf 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 Medicaid and Medicare 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). 

I. THE IMPACT ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES OF INSUFFICIENT 

FUNDING FOR SSA’S ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET 

As the backlog in decisions on disability claims continues to grow, people with severe disabilities have been bearing the brunt of insufficient funding for SSA’s administrative budget. 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.1 Numerous recent media reports across the country have docmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

72 

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. 

umented the suffering experienced by these individuals. Access to other key services, such as replacing a lost check or promptly recording earnings, also has diminished. Despite dramatically increased workloads, staffing levels throughout the 

agency are at the lowest level since 1972. 

Backlog in Appeals of Disability Claims: The Human Toll 

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives 

(NOSSCR), a member of the CCD Social Security Task Force, recently conducted a 

quick survey of their members for an update on how the backlogs are affecting 

claimants. The following short descriptions of individual’s circumstances are a sampling of what is happening across the country to claimants who are forced to wait 

interminably for decisions on their appeals. Your own constituent services staff are 

likely well aware of similar situations from your Congressional district. 

• Mr. R is 38 years old and lives in Brooklyn, New York. He has major depressive 

disorder, anorexia nervosa with severe weight loss, somatoform disorder, and 

generalized fatigue. He applied for SSI benefits in September 2003 and requested a hearing in March 2004. The ODAR hearing office failed to send a Notice of Hearing for the hearing, scheduled in December 2006. As a result, Mr. 

R did not appear and his hearing request was dismissed. He obtained representation in June 2007 after the dismissal. His attorney immediately contacted the 

ALJ and submitted all documents establishing that Mr. R was never informed 

of the hearing. She also sent all medical evidence she had obtained. The attorney asked the ALJ to reopen the case and to schedule an expedited hearing. 

The hearing was finally held in November 2007 and the ALJ issued a favorable 

decision in late November 2007. There still was a delay in receipt of benefits 

as Mr. R did not receive his first SSI past due installment payment until March 

2008 and his first SSI monthly payment until April 2008. 

While waiting for the hearing decision and benefits payments, Mr. R lost his 

welfare benefits and Medicaid, so he could not receive treatment. His anorexia 

nervosa was so extreme as to cause severe tooth decay requiring dentures. He 

received an eviction notice for his apartment but his attorney worked with the 

landlord to stave off eviction based on the fact that a new hearing was being 

scheduled. Because his welfare case was closed, Mr. R had no money. He had 

to go to food pantries for any donation and his neighbors helped him from time 

to time. He even had to borrow money to ride the subway to his hearing. 

• Ms. K applied for disability benefits in August 2004. She lived in Key West, FL. 

Her husband shot her 5 times in the liver and abdomen and then killed himself. 

Her disabilities stemmed from these injuries and from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Her claim was denied and she requested a hearing in 

April 2006. Nearly two years later, her hearing was held in March 2008 and 

the ALJ stated that benefits would be awarded. Unfortunately, Ms. K died in 

late March 2008 of long-term complications from her wounds and COPD, before 

the written decision was received. Because she did not have money to live independently, she was forced to live with her mother. The mother, who has dementia, is a chain-smoker. During the last part of her life, Ms. K had frequent hospitalizations. She would then return to her mother’s house and her condition 

would worsen. Her attorney last saw Ms. K about a week before her death. Ms. 

K told her attorney that she believed she would die if she could not get into 

a smoke-free living situation. Since Ms. K died in part from COPD, her attorney 

believes that her compromised living situation, due to the lack of income, shortened her life. 

• Mrs. G, a 58-year-old woman from Georgia, worked her entire life, the last 15 

years at a convenience store. Over time, she developed degenerative joint disease and cardiovascular problems. In 2004, she deteriorated to the point that 

she stopped working. She had a house where she had lived for many years but 

fell behind on the payments. Her attorney had to intercede on her behalf several times to stop foreclosure. Her car, which she fully owned, sat idle because 

she could not pay the tag fees and could not afford gas. Three years after she 

applied, she had a hearing. While the ALJ stated at the hearing that a favorable ruling would be forthcoming, it still took more than six months after the 

hearing before she received her favorable decision. Even then she had trouble 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

73 

getting her monthly benefits started. Several months passed and still she did 

not receive past due benefits. As she still owed back mortgage payments, the 

mortgage company started foreclosure proceedings again. She reported to her 

attorney that the anxiety over her claim was making her cardiovascular problems worsen. She never received her past due benefits. She died still waiting. 

Her attorney notes that Mrs. G is his fourth client who has died in the last 

three years while waiting for a favorable decision and payment of benefits. 

• Mr. M lived in the Chicago, IL, area. He had various medical problems, but the 

most significant one was the need for kidney dialysis, which became apparent 

after the application was filed. The need for dialysis meant that his impairment 

met one of the listings of impairments, at least as of the date that the dialysis 

began. His request for hearing was filed in January 2007. Mr. M’s medical condition worsened. In addition, he did not have a permanent residence and stayed 

with his sister for part of the time that his claim was pending. However, he 

informed his attorney that his sister was moving, that he could no longer stay 

with her, and that he had no alternative place to live. 

In July 2007, his attorney began a series of contacts with the ODAR hearing 

office in an effort to have the case considered for an ‘‘on the record’’ decision 

or to schedule a hearing on an expedited basis given Mr. M’s medical condition 

and lack of a permanent residence. Between July 2007 and February 2008, his 

attorney sent five letters, left multiple voice mail messages, and spoke with the 

hearing office director about Mr. M’s case. Finally, in February 2008, the hearing office called to schedule the case in April 2008, sixteen months after the 

appeal was filed. Unfortunately, Mr. M died in March 2008. As a result, he 

never received the benefits to which he was entitled. He died destitute. And because this was an SSI claim, no one, including his sister who helped him, will 

be eligible to receive the retroactive benefits. 

• Mr. O, from Richmond, Missouri, died in the lobby of the ODAR hearing office 

while waiting to be called for his hearing on April 2, 2008. He was 49 years 

old and is survived by his wife and 4 children. He filed his SSI application for 

disability in November 2005, alleging inability to work due to uncontrolled diabetes with neuropathy, and shoulder and arm pain. He had worked for 14 years 

as a truck driver. His claim was denied in March 2006 and he promptly filed 

a request for hearing in April 2006. While waiting for hearing, he had numerous problems with child support authorities and his home was foreclosed upon. 

His representative filed a dire need request in July 2007 to expedite the hearing, but he did not receive a hearing date until February 2008, when the hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2008, the day he died. 

• Mr. N lived in the Charlotte, North Carolina area. He was 57 years old and 

died in August 2007. As an adult, he obtained a degree in theology. From 1986 

to 1997, he worked doing maintenance on power generating stations. He developed heart disease and emphysema and, from 1998 to 2004, he did less strenuous work. In June 2005, he filed a claim for Title II disability benefits. His 

claim was denied and he requested a hearing in April 2006. During the wait, 

he developed a spot on his lung, but could not afford a CT scan for an accurate 

diagnosis. In May 2007, he received a foreclosure notice, lost his house, and had 

to move in with his daughter. He died in August 2007 of ischemic heart disease. 

In February 2008, months after his death, his claim was approved on informal 

remand to the DDS. 

• Mrs. M, a 33 year old former waitress and substitute school teacher, lives in 

Muskogee, Oklahoma. She has degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, 

neck and hands; hearing loss; left wrist injury; migraines; tingling/numbness in 

the left knee and left foot; right hip problems; dizziness and nausea. She filed 

her application for benefits in August 2005 and a request for hearing in May 

2006. Mrs. M is married with three children, including one son who is disabled. 

After a nearby plant explosion damaged their home in 2004, the family was 

forced to move into an apartment. Evicted in 2007, they have had no permanent 

residence since then and have been forced to live in a variety of temporary settings, including a shelter for women and children (Mrs. M’s husband slept in 

the car). After the 2007 eviction, Mrs. M’s attorney sent letters to the ODAR 

hearing office requesting an expedited hearing because of the family’s homelessness. Mrs. M received a fully favorable decision on March 26, 2008, nearly two 

years after she filed her request for a hearing. Her disabled child also received 

a favorable decision on March 25, 2008. On April 7, 2008, an SSA district office 

worker informed the attorney that both Mrs. M and her disabled child were in 

pay status. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

74 

2Social Security Disability: Better Planning, Management, and Evaluation Could Help Address Backlogs, GAO–08–40 (Dec. 2007) (‘‘GAO Report’’), p. 22. 3Social Security Administration: Fiscal Year 2009 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees (‘‘SSA FY 09 Budget Justification’’), p. 6. 4GAO Report, p. 20. 

5 ‘‘National Ranking Report by Average Processing Time’’ for the month ending March 28, 

2008. 

A full set of these stories, submitted from 29 states, is located at the end of this 

testimony. Without a doubt, people with severe disabilities are bearing extraordinary and unnecessary hardship as a result of the persistent under-funding of 

SSA’s administrative expenses. 

Inadequate Funding of SSA’s Limitation on Administrative Expenses 

The primary reason for the continued and growing disability claims backlogs is 

that SSA has not received adequate funds for its management costs. Although Commissioner Astrue has made reduction and elimination of the disability claims backlog one of his top priorities, without adequate appropriations, the situation will deteriorate even more. 

Recent Congressional efforts to provide SSA with adequate funding for its administrative budget are encouraging. The Fiscal Year 2008 appropriation for SSA’s Limitation on Administrative Expenses (LAE) was $9,746,953,000. This amount was 

$148 million above the President’s request and was the first time in years that the 

agency has received at least the President’s request. 

While the FY 2008 appropriation allows the agency to hire some new staff and 

to reduce processing times, it will not be adequate to fully restore the agency’s ability to carry out its mandated services. Between FY 2000 and 2007, Congress appropriated less than both the Commissioner of Social Security and the President requested, resulting in a total administrative budget shortfall of 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. 

Processing Times Have Reached Intolerable Levels 

The average processing time for cases at the hearing level has increased dramatically since 2000, when the average time was 274 days.2 In the current fiscal year, 

SSA estimates that the average processing time for disability claims at the hearing 

level will be 535 days,3 nearly twice as long as in 2000. It is important to keep in 

mind that this is an ‘‘average’’ and that many claimants will wait longer. 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.4

The current processing times in some hearing offices are striking, and much 

longer than the 535 days targeted by SSA in FY 2008. SSA statistics from March 

2008 for its 144 hearing offices5 indicate that the average processing time at 47 

hearing offices is above the projected average processing time. There is wide fluctuation, with some offices over 700 days and even over 800 days. 

Impact on Post-Entitlement Work 

While the impact of inadequate funding on the backlog in disability decisions is 

unacceptable, there are also other important functions which SSA cannot perform 

in a timely manner. SSA has many mandated responsibilities, which include: paying 

benefits; issuing Social Security cards; processing earnings for credits to worker’s 

records; responding to questions from the public on the 800-number and in the field 

offices; issuing Social Security statements; processing continuing disability reviews 

(CDRs) and SSI eligibility redeterminations; and administering components of the 

Medicare program, including subsidy applications, calculating and withholding premiums, making eligibility determinations, and taking applications for replacement 

Medicare cards. 

One aspect of post-entitlement work that has slipped in the past is the processing 

of earnings reports filed by people with disabilities. Typically, the individual calls 

SSA and reports work and earnings or brings the information into an SSA field office. However, due to budget constraints, SSA often fails to input the information 

into its computer system and does not make the needed adjustments in benefits. 

Months or years later—after a computer match with earnings records—SSA sends 

an overpayment notice to the beneficiary, demanding re-payment of sometimes tens 

of thousands of dollars. All too often, however, SSA will indicate that it has no 

record of the beneficiary’s earnings reports. Many individuals with disabilities are 

wary of attempting to return to work out of fear that this may give rise to the overmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

75 

6SSA FY 09 Budget Justification, p. 18. 

7SSA FY 09 Budget Justification, p. 92. 

8GAO Report, p. 20. 

9SSA FY 09 Budget Justification, p. 6. 

10GAO Report, p. 32. 11 Id. 12SSA FY 09 Budget Justification, page 92, Table 3.2—Key Performance Targets, under Selected Outcome Measures. 13Pub. L. No. 110–185. 

payment scenario and result in a loss of economic stability and healthcare coverage 

upon which they rely. 

Advocates report seeing problems of overpayments and underpayments generated 

by the inability of SSA to open its mail. Clients describe sending in pay-stubs and 

not seeing any change in benefits for 6 months. One advocate indicated that his client protested and requested waiver of an overpayment, insisting that she had reported and sent in pay stubs as required. She requested that a Claims Representative search the mail room and reported that a year’s worth of specially colored envelopes from her were found lying unopened in the district office mail room. 

Impact on Performing Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) and SSI Redeterminations 

The processing of CDRs and SSI redeterminations is necessary to protect program 

integrity and avert improper payments. Failure to conduct the full complement of 

CDRs would have adverse consequences for the Federal budget and the deficit. According to SSA, CDRs result in $10 of program savings and SSI redeterminations 

result in $7 of program savings for each $1 spent in administrative costs for the 

reviews.6 However, the number of reviews actually conducted is directly related to 

whether SSA receives the necessary funds. SSA’s Budget Justification refers specifically to CDRs based on medical factors.7 It is important when SSA conducts work 

CDRs that it assess whether reported earnings have been properly recorded and ensure that they properly assess whether work constitutes substantial gainful activity 

(SGA). 

The Number of Pending Cases Continues to Increase 

In its 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 2006.8 The number of pending cases at the hearing level 

reached a low in FY 1999 at 311,958 cases. The numbers have increased dramatically since 1999, reaching 752,000 in FY 2008.9

SSA received funding in FY 2008 to hire approximately 150 new Administrative 

Law Judges to conduct hearings and some additional support staff. We understand 

that SSA has already hired 135 ALJs. It will take some time for the judges to be 

trained and to get up to speed in hearing and deciding disability cases. However, 

productivity is not related solely to the number of ALJs, but also to the number of 

support staff. While SSA senior managers and ALJs recommend a staffing ratio of 

5.25,10 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) 11, the number of pending cases older 

than 270 days was much lower. 

Decreases in Staffing Result in Decreases in Services 

Beyond the crisis in cases pending for hearings, SSA estimates that in FY 2009 

it will have a staffing deficit of essentially 8,100 full-time staff.12 The FY 2008 

shortfall is 3,300 workyears, and the FY 2009 shortfall is projected to be 4,800 

workyears. We understand from Social Security officials that these figures must be 

added together to see the cumulative shortfall of 8,100 staff. This shortfall explains 

the concerns mentioned above regarding the agency’s ability to carry out its mandated services. 

Impact of New Workloads 

We were pleased that in the recent Economic Stimulus Act of 2008,13 Congress 

recognized the added work that SSA will incur as a result of the legislation and appropriated an additional $31 million to the agency for FY 2008. However, over the 

past decade, Congress has passed legislation that added to SSA’s workload, but did 

not necessarily provide additional funds to implement these provisions. Recent examples include: 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

76 

• Conducting pre-effectuation reviews on increasing numbers of initial SSI disability allowances. SSA must review these cases for accuracy prior to issuing 

the decision. 

• Changing how SSI retroactive benefits are to be paid. SSA must issue these 

benefits in installments if the amount is equal to or more than three months 

of benefits. The first two installments can be no more than three months of benefits each, unless the beneficiary shows a hardship due to certain debts. Under 

prior law, the provision was triggered only if the past due benefits equaled 12 

months or more. SSA must address these hardship requests and handle the increased number of installment payments. 

• SSA’s Medicare workloads. SSA has workloads related to the Medicare Part D 

prescription drug program, including determining eligibility for low-income subsidies; processing subsidy changing events for current beneficiaries; conducting 

eligibility redeterminations; performing premium withholding; and making annual income-related premium adjustment determinations for the Medicare Part 

B program. 

Mandatory Employment Verification Would Overwhelm SSA 

We are very concerned about the potential impact of legislation under consideration to mandate the use of the electronic employment eligibility verification system 

(EEVS) to all employers. Since 1996, employers have had the option of verifying 

names and Social Security Numbers of new hires against SSA’s database through 

EEVS, an e-verification pilot program operated jointly by SSA and the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS). Currently 53,000 employers use it to verify the legal 

status of job applicants. Most are participating voluntarily, but some are required 

to use the EEVS by law or due to prior immigration violations. Studies have found 

that the current system, used by less than 1% of all employers, is hampered by inaccuracies in the DHS and SSA records. If made mandatory, the errors in EEVS 

would require millions of U.S. citizens and legal immigrants to interact with SSA 

to prove that they are eligible to work. At a hearing of the Social Security Subcommittee on June 7, 2007, the SSA witness indicated that SSA would need at least 

2,000 to 3,000 additional staff to handle the new workload. 

Given the current shortage in administrative resources for SSA discussed above 

(8,100 workyears short in FY 2009), we cannot support increased mandatory responsibilities of this magnitude. Past experience with new workloads for SSA make us 

wary of the capacity to fully fund the administrative responsibilities on a sustained 

basis. Such a mandate could have further devastating effects on the disability determination system which is already so overwhelmed. 

CCD Recommendations Regarding SSA Limitation on Administrative Expenses Funding 

The President’s request for the SSA FY 2009 LAE does not go far enough to put 

the agency on a clear path to provide its mandated services at a level expected by 

the American public. SSA must be given enough funding to make disability decisions in a timely manner and to carry out other critical workloads. Due to the serious consequences of persistent and cumulative under-funding of SSA’s administrative expenses, we strongly recommend that SSA receive $11 billion for its FY 2009 

LAE. This amount will allow the agency to make significant strides in reducing the 

disability claims backlog, improving other services to the public, and conducting 

adequate numbers of CDRs and SSI redeterminations. At a minimum, SSA should 

receive the President’s request of $10.327 billion plus $240 million for integrity 

work. 

In addition, CCD also urges Congress to separate SSA’s LAE budget authority 

from the Section 302(a) and (b) allocations for discretionary spending. The size of 

SSA’s LAE is driven by the number of administrative functions it conducts to serve 

beneficiaries and applicants. Congress should remove SSA’s administrative functions from the discretionary budget that supports other important programs. The 

LAE would still be subject to the annual appropriations process and Congressional 

oversight. 

II. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVING THE DISABILITY CLAIMS 

PROCESS 

Money alone will not solve SSA’s crisis in meeting its responsibilities. Commissioner Astrue has 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. Many of these recommendations have already been initimmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

77 

14 Commissioner Astrue announced a number of initiatives to eliminate the SSA hearings 

backlog at a Senate Finance Committee hearing on May 23, 2007. The 18-page summary of his 

recommendations is available at www.senate.gov/finance/sitepages/hearing052307.htm. An update on the status of the recommendations/initiatives is the subject of the Plan to Eliminate the 

Hearing Backlog and Prevent Its Recurrence: End of Year Report, Fiscal Year 2007, SSA Office 

of Disability Adjudication and Review (‘‘ODAR Report’’). 

ated by SSA.14 We believe that these recommendations and agency initiatives, 

which overall are not controversial and which we support, can go a long way towards reducing and eventually eliminating the disability claims backlog. Finally, we 

have raised concerns about SSA proposals to revise the appeals process for claimants who have received initial denials of their disability claims. 

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 bottom line evaluation must be how the process affects 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 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. As seen earlier in this testimony, many are experiencing 

extreme hardship from the loss of earned income, often living through the breakup 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. 

We believe that the critical measure for assessing initiatives for achieving administrative efficiencies must be the potential impact on claimants and beneficiaries. 

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. 

1. Improve Development of Evidence Earlier in the Process 

CCD supports full development of the record at the beginning of the claim 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. 

Developing the record so that relevant evidence from all sources can be considered 

is fundamental to full and fair adjudication of claims. The adjudicator needs to review a wide variety of evidence in a typical case, including: medical records of treatment; opinions from medical sources and other treating sources, such as social workers and therapists; records of prescribed medications; statements from former employers; and vocational assessments. The adjudicator needs these types of information to make the necessary findings and determinations under the SSA disability 

criteria. 

Claimants should be encouraged to submit evidence as early as possible. However, 

the fact that early submission of evidence does not occur more frequently is usually 

due to many reasons beyond the claimant’s control, including: 

• State agency disability examiners who fail to request and obtain necessary and 

relevant evidence, including the failure to request specific information tailored 

to the SSA disability criteria; 

• The failure of SSA and state agency disability examiners to explain to claimants 

or providers what evidence is important, necessary, and relevant for adjudication of the claim; 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

78 

15Our recommendations include those made by Linda Landry, Disability Law Center, Boston, 

MA, at the SSA ‘‘Compassionate Allowance Outreach Hearing for Rare Diseases’’ held in Washington, DC, on December 4, 2007. Her testimony is available online at: http://www.ssa.gov/ 

compassionateallowances/LandryFinalCompassionateAllowances2.pdf. 16This 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). 

• Cost or access restrictions, including confusion over Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) requirements, which prevent claimants 

from obtaining records; 

• Medical providers who delay or refuse to submit evidence; 

• Inadequate reimbursement rates for providers; and 

• Evidence which is submitted but then misplaced. 

Claimants’ representatives are often able to ensure that the claim is properly developed. Based on the experiences and practical techniques of representatives, we 

have a number of recommendations15 that we believe will improve the development 

process: 

• 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 application paperwork so that all impairments and sources of information are identified, including non-physician and other professional sources. 

• DDs 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, state disability determination service (DDS) forms usually ask for general 

medical information (diagnoses, findings, etc.) without tailoring questions to the 

Social Security disability standard. 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; 16 the evaluation of mental impairments, pain, and 

other subjective symptoms; the evaluation of childhood disability; and the use 

of the Social Security Rulings. 

• Improve use of the existing methods of expediting disability determinations. SSA already has in place a number of methods which can expedite a favorable disability decision if the appropriate criteria are met, including Quick 

Disability Determinations, Presumptive Disability in SSI cases, and terminal 

illness (‘‘TERI’’) cases. 

• 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. 

2. Expand 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. The initiative to process disability claims electronically has the 

prospect of significantly reducing delays by eliminating lost files, reducing the time 

that files spend in transit, and preventing misfiled evidence. Some of the technological improvements that we believe can help reduce the backlog include the following: 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

79 

17 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.936 and 416.1436. 18 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1619 and 416.1019. 19 72 Fed. Reg. 41649 (July 31, 2007). 20The 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). 21ODAR Report, p. 3. 

• The electronic disability folder: ‘‘eDIB.’’ The electronic folder should reduce 

delays caused by the moving and handing-off of folders, allowing for immediate 

access by different components of SSA or the DDS. 

• Electronic Records Express (ERE). ERE is an initiative to increase the use 

of electronic options for submitting records related to disability claims that have 

electronic folders. Registered claimant representatives are able to submit evidence electronically through the SSA secure website or to a dedicated fax number using a unique barcode assigned to the claim. 

• 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. 

• Use of video hearings. Video hearings allow ALJs to conduct hearings without being at the same geographical site as the claimant and representative and 

has 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 in-person 

hearing as provided under current regulations.17

3. New Screening Initiatives 

We support SSA’s efforts to accelerate decisions and develop new mechanisms for 

expedited eligibility throughout the application and review process. Ideally, adjudicators should use SSA screening criteria as early as possible in the process and 

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 

2007.18 The QDD process has the potential of providing a prompt disability decision to those claimants who are the most severely disabled. Since the QDD 

process’s August 2006 implementation in Region I states, 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.19 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. . . .’’ Like 

the QDD process, SSA is looking at the use of computer software to screen cases 

by searching claims for key words in the electronic folder. 

4. Other Hearing Level Improvements 

• The Senior Attorney Program. In the 1990s, senior staff attorneys were 

given the authority to issue fully favorable decisions in cases that could be decided without a hearing (i.e. ‘‘on the record’’). While the Senior Attorney Program existed, it helped to reduce the backlog by issuing approximately 200,000 

decisions. We are pleased that Commissioner Astrue has decided to reinstate 

the program for at least the next two years20 and has proceeded with implementation.21 We believe that this initiative will help to reduce the backlog of 

cases at the hearing level. 

• Increasing the time for providing notice of hearings. Current regulations 

in most of the country provide only a 20-day advance notice for ALJ hearings. 

This time period is not adequate for requesting, receiving, and submitting the 

most recent and up-to-date medical evidence prior to the hearing. SSA has prommaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

80 

22 72 Fed. Reg. 61218 (Oct. 29, 2007). 23 Id. 24See: http://www.c-c-d.org/tasklforces/sociallsec/CCDlNPRMlcommentslFINALl12-27- 

07.pdf. 

posed to expand the 75-day hearing notice requirement nationwide.22 We 

strongly support this proposed change. This increased time period will mean 

that many more cases would be fully developed prior to the hearing and lead 

to more on-the-record decisions, avoiding the need for a hearing. 

CCD Response to the NPRM: Amendments to the Administrative Law 

Judge, Appeals Council, and Decision Review Board Appeals Levels 

On October 29, 2007, SSA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 

which would make major changes to the appeals process.23 We had very serious concerns about the proposed rule’s impact on claimants and beneficiaries and submitted 

extensive comments on behalf of over 30 national organizations.24 Our overarching 

concern was that many aspects of the proposed process would elevate speed of adjudication above accuracy of decision-making. This is problematic and not appropriate 

for a non-adversarial process. 

On balance, we urged the Commissioner not to implement this NPRM unless significant changes were made to protect the rights and interests of people with disabilities. Our measure is whether the process will be fair. While there are some 

positive proposed changes, e.g., a 75-day hearing notice (the current rule provides 

only a 20-day notice); de novo review by the ALJ; and retaining a claimant’s right 

to administrative review of an unfavorable ALJ decision, we noted that the package 

of proposals, as a whole, would result in more decisions that are not based on full 

and complete records. Claimants would be denied not because they are not disabled, 

but because they would not have had an opportunity to present their case. It is appropriate to deny benefits to an individual who is found not eligible, if that individual has received full and fair due process. It is not appropriate to deny benefits 

to an eligible individual simply because he or she has been caught in procedural 

tangles and barriers. We believe that the flexible nature of the current non-adversarial, truth-seeking process must be preserved. 

As you know, on January 29, 2008, after the close of the public comment period, 

Commissioner Astrue informed Representative McNulty, Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, that in light of the concerns expressed by the public and Members of Congress, he was suspending the rulemaking process for the provisions that 

were controversial. 

Following that announcement, Commissioner Astrue met with members of 

NOSSCR and CCD to discuss those areas of the proposed rule considered controversial. We felt the meeting was productive and believe that Commissioner Astrue and 

his staff are working in good faith to address the serious concerns raised by advocates. We look forward to another meeting or follow-up on those issues which SSA 

officials agreed to reconsider. 

Claimant Stories Provided by Representatives in April 2008 

ALABAMA 

• Ms. S was a court reporter for 26 years in Mobile, Alabama. She stopped working in March 2002 due to severe carpal tunnel syndrome, chronic obstructive 

pulmonary disease (COPD), and psychiatric impairments. The claimant filed a 

claim on her own in 2002 and lost at the ALJ level a few years later and never 

appealed. She then sought representation and her attorney helped her file a 

new claim. Two hearings were held and there were two Appeals Council remands. By this time, Ms. S had undergone several carpal tunnel release surgeries without any real relief, became dependent on a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine to facilitate her breathing, and her dementia became increasingly progressive to the point that she was completely dependent 

on her adult son and her sister. Following a request to the ALJ for an ‘‘on the 

record’’ decision, after the second Appeals Council remand, the ALJ issued a favorable decision on March 28, 2008. 

ALASKA 

• Ms. B of Sitka, Alaska, applied for Title II and SSI benefits in March 1998. 

After initial denial of both claims, she had a hearing in March 2000. The unfavorable ALJ decision was issued more than one year later in April 2001. She 

filed a hand-written appeal to the Appeals Council in May 2001. In her appeal, 

she wrote that her condition was grave because she had severe headaches, dizziness, lost balance, had blurry vision, and severe head pain and fatigue. Five 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

81 

and one-half years later, the Appeals Council denied review in December 2006. 

Ms. B was unrepresented through that point. She obtained counsel to file an 

appeal to Federal court. Upon reviewing the administrative record, her attorney 

immediately noticed that the record contained substantial records from another 

person, including the other person’s name. These are the same medical records 

upon which the ALJ denied her claim in 2001, including the finding that Ms. 

B was not credible. The fact that these records belonged to another individual 

was obvious. 

In Federal court, the incorrect records were brought to the attention of the 

SSA Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the court. In May 2007, Ms. B’s attorney and the SSA attorney agreed to a remand, which the court approved. Since 

May 2007, there has been no action by SSA to move this claim toward disposition. Ms. B’s attorney has filed a request for an ‘‘on the record’’ decision but 

has received no response. Ms. B is now receiving benefits but only since 2007 

when she received a favorable ALJ decision on a subsequent application. However, that decision only paid benefits starting in September 2003. 

ARKANSAS 

• Ms. R lives in Fayetteville, Arkansas, and filed for Title II and SSI benefits in 

April 2001. Her claim was denied and a hearing was held in December 2002. 

Her SSI claim was allowed but the Title II claim was denied based on lack of 

insured status. On appeal to the Appeals Council, proof was submitted that she 

had worked and was insured, but the claim was denied again. Ms. R filed an 

appeal in Federal court, which was remanded in April 2004 because the administrative record was lost. Nearly two years later, in January 2006, the Appeals 

Council finally remanded the case to an ALJ, certifying that all efforts to locate 

the file had been exhausted, to have an immediate hearing to reconstruct the 

file. Ms. R’s attorney has continually contacted the hearing office regarding the 

remand hearing based on the court’s order four years ago. There has still been 

no hearing set on this matter. Being restricted to SSI has seriously affected her 

financial situation and she is being denied the Title II disability payments, for 

which she has worked. • Mr. M filed a claim for benefits some time in late 2005, which was denied. He 

lives in Pettigrew, Arkansas. A hearing was requested in October 2006 and held 

in January 2008. A decision has not yet been received. Mr. M has had a series 

of strokes, which affect his ability to comprehend and his condition continues 

to worsen. He also has been forced to move from place to place, because his family cannot afford to pay for his living expenses and they lost their home. • Ms. C from Farmington, Arkansas, filed a claim for benefits in early 2006. After 

being denied, she requested a hearing in August 2006. A hearing was held in 

September 2007, but it was another six months before she received a favorable 

decision, which was more than two years after she filed her claim. During this 

time, Ms. C. lost her home, which she shared with an abusive and alcoholic 

man because she had no money and no other place to live. She now moves 

around, including staying with her parents. • Ms. M filed a claim for benefits in August 2005 while living in Florida. The 

claim was denied and she requested a hearing in April 2006. Following that 

hearing request, Ms. M moved to Fayetteville, Arkansas, and obtained representation. Beginning in November 2006, her attorney requested that her file be 

transferred from Florida to Arkansas. The transfer finally occurred ten months 

later in September 2007. A hearing was held in March 2008. Ms. M continues 

to decline in physical, emotional, and mental health. She had been living with 

a sister, but was asked to leave. She moves from family member to family member, and has no money for medical treatment or even basic necessities. 

CONNECTICUT 

• Mr. C, who worked as a landscaper, has liver failure. While waiting two years 

for a hearing, he became homeless. By the time his hearing was held, he was 

living in his car in the middle of winter. He was hospitalized right after the 

hearing and the hospital had no place where he could be discharged. He waited 

for two months after the hearing for a favorable ALJ decision and another 

month after that to start receiving benefits. 

FLORIDA 

• Ms. K applied for disability benefits in August 2004. She lived in Key West, FL. 

Her husband shot her 5 times in the liver and abdomen and then killed himself. 

Her disabilities stemmed from these injuries and from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Her claim was denied and she requested a hearing in 

April 2006. Nearly two years later, her hearing was held in March 2008 and 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

82 

the ALJ stated that benefits would be awarded. Unfortunately, Ms. K died in 

late March 2008 of long-term complications from her wounds and COPD, before 

the written decision was received. Because she did not have money to live independently, she was forced to live with her mother. The mother, who has dementia, is a chain-smoker. During the last part of her life, Ms. K had frequent hospitalizations. She would then return to her mother’s house and her condition 

would worsen. Her attorney last saw Ms. K about a week before her death. Ms. 

K told her attorney that she believed she would die if she could not get into 

a smoke-free living situation. Since Ms. K died in part from COPD, her attorney 

believes that her compromised living situation, due to the lack of income, shortened her life. • Mr. F filed a claim for disability benefits in September 2004 and was denied 

twice before his hearing in July 2006. He has well-documented uncontrolled seizure disorder and used a wheelchair for the first six months of his disability. 

He is 56 years old. While waiting for his hearing, he could not pay his utility 

bills and his electricity and water were turned off. He lived without any utilities 

for over six months. He and his wife lived in a trailer. For water, they would 

carry empty milk containers to a communal water faucet in the trailer park to 

fill them. They used this water to wash dishes, bathe and flush toilets for over 

six months. At the hearing, the ALJ approved the claim but with an onset date 

of only two months prior to the hearing, and Mr. F has appealed the onset date. 

• Mr. B is a 48 year old former mechanic who lives in Bradenton, Florida. He 

has diabetes mellitus, failed back surgery syndrome, three disc herniations in 

his lower back and two in his cervical spine, ambulates with a cane, and has 

developed depression and anxiety. His application was filed in September 2004. 

He has not yet had a hearing, which is scheduled for June 18, 2008. He is a 

workers’ compensation recipient. However, in the interim, his benefits were significantly reduced. He had to move in with eight other family members and depends on them for financial support. The workers’ compensation carrier has denied several of his medical bills on grounds that his conditions were pre-existing, so he has had no medical care for some time. 

• Ms. L was a 44 year old female with advanced, end-stage breast cancer. She 

lived in Bradenton, Florida. She filed an application for benefits in 2002, her 

request for a hearing was filed in August 2005, but she died from her condition 

in April 2006. She was living with her mother at the time. 

• Mr. M is a 57 year old former businessman. He has end-stage kidney failure, 

uncontrolled hypertension, and anemia. He had numerous reports stating his 

condition was terminal. He filed an application in 2004 and a request for a 

hearing in August 2005. He was awarded benefits without a hearing in April 

2006 by the ALJ, after his attorney sent two letters requesting an ‘‘on the 

record’’ decision. Until the ALJ decision, his phone, electricity, and other utilities were cut off. His house went into foreclosure. He had no medical insurance 

and his wife could not afford to support him. 

• Mr. D was a 56 year old laborer with a 6th grade education. He had end-stage 

lung cancer. In 2007, he filed an application in West Virginia, then moved to 

Florida. He died in February 2008. While waiting for a determination, he lost 

his home, car, wife, and all sources of income. He died in a hospice with no family knowledgeable about his whereabouts. 

GEORGIA 

• Mr. A is 23 years old. He previously received SSI benefits due to a heart transplant. His benefits were terminated. Now, Medicaid will no longer pay for his 

anti-rejection medication. If he does not get this medication, he will die. His 

hearing request was filed in February 2007 but no hearing has been scheduled. 

• Mrs. G, a 58 year old woman, worked her entire life, the last 15 years at a convenience store. Over time, she developed degenerative joint disease and cardiovascular problems. In 2004, she deteriorated to the point that she stopped working. She had a house where she had lived for many years but fell behind on 

the payments. Her attorney had to intercede on her behalf several times to stop 

foreclosure. Her car, which she fully owned, sat idle because she could not pay 

the tag fees and could not afford gas. Three years after she applied, she had 

a hearing. While the ALJ stated at the hearing that a favorable ruling would 

be forthcoming, it still took more than six months after the hearing before she 

received her favorable decision. Even then she had trouble getting her monthly 

benefits started. Several months passed and still she did not receive past due 

benefits. As she still owed back mortgage payments, the mortgage company 

started foreclosure proceedings again. She reported to her attorney that the 

anxiety over her claim was making her cardiovascular problems worsen. She 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

83 

never received her past due benefits. She died still waiting. Her attorney notes 

that Mrs. G is his fourth client who has died in the last three years while waiting for a favorable decision and payment of benefits. 

HAWAII 

• An attorney in Honolulu reports that the ALJ who hears claims in the Honolulu 

ODAR hearing office has been out on sick leave since November 2007. Since 

then, no hearings have been held in the State of Hawaii. For reasons he does 

not know, the SSA Regional Office in San Francisco, CA, did not make arrangements to have the hearing docket handled by a visiting ALJ. He personally has 

about 50 clients waiting for their cases to be scheduled. Like other claimants, 

these are individuals with severe illnesses that prevent them from working and 

they have no income. After the attorney and his clients wrote to one of their 

Senators, SSA began to schedule video hearings for the end of April 2008 in 

Honolulu, which the attorney reports is the first action since the end of November 2007. However, the other islands in Hawaii are not set up for video hearings. 

ILLINOIS 

• Mr. M lived in the Chicago, IL, area. He had various medical problems, but the 

most significant one was the need for kidney dialysis, which became apparent 

after the application was filed. The need for dialysis meant that his impairment 

met one of the listings of impairments, at least as of the date that the dialysis 

began. His request for hearing was filed in January 2007. Mr. M’s medical condition worsened. In addition, he did not have a permanent residence and stayed 

with his sister for part of the time that his claim was pending. However, he 

informed his attorney that his sister was moving, that he could no longer stay 

with her, and that he had no alternative place to live. 

In July 2007, his attorney began a series of contacts with the ODAR hearing 

office in an effort to have the case considered for an ‘‘on the record’’ decision 

or to schedule a hearing on an expedited basis given Mr. M’s medical condition 

and lack of a permanent residence. Between July 2007 and February 2008, his 

attorney sent five letters, left multiple voice mail messages, and spoke with the 

hearing office director about Mr. M’s case. Finally, in February 2008, the hearing office called to schedule the case in April 2008, sixteen months after the 

appeal was filed. Unfortunately, Mr. M died in March 2008. As a result, he 

never received the benefits to which he was entitled. He died destitute. And because this was an SSI claim, no one, including his sister who helped him, will 

be eligible to receive the retroactive benefits. 

• Mr. R, age 48, has Lou Gehrig’s Disease and became disabled in January 2006. 

His claim was denied and his hearing request has been pending since October 

2007. He spent five years caring for his ailing mother prior to her death and 

now needs assistance with most activities of daily living. However, his wife cannot afford to stop working and he cannot afford to hire an assistant. He may 

not live long enough to have a hearing. 

• Mr. J is 51 years old. He previously received disability benefits for five years 

due to a back injury. He returned to work as a truck driver but was re-injured 

on the job. His employer did not have workers’ compensation insurance. He has 

an inoperable spinal disorder. His application was filed in October 2005 and his 

hearing request was filed more than two years ago in March 2006. His attorneys’ requests for an ‘‘on the record’’ decision and for expedited reinstatement 

of benefits have been denied. Mr. J’s treating physician strongly supports this 

disability claim. Mr. J and his wife have lost every financial asset that they accumulated while they were working and they now live with the wife’s elderly 

mother who lives on a fixed income. Exacerbating his impairment, Mr. J was 

in a car accident in April 2008, which injured his neck and head and knocked 

him unconscious. 

• Ms. K is a 52 year old woman, and a resident of Joliet, IL. She has major depression with psychosis, diabetic neuropathy, chest pain, and arthritis. She was 

48 years old when she applied for Title II disability benefits in 2004. She requested an ALJ hearing in February 2006 and still does not have a hearing 

scheduled. Since she applied in 2004, she has suffered deteriorating health and 

severe financial hardship, including a utility shutoff during one of the coldest 

winters in recent memory. Her attorney has been told that because she has a 

paper file, this has further delayed the scheduling of her hearing. Her attorney 

requested an ‘‘on the record’’ decision without the need for a hearing based on 

the strength of her case and her long wait, but this request was denied. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

84 

• Mr. B from Freeport, IL, requested a hearing in November 2001 and a hearing 

was held in May 2002. No decision was issued and the ALJ scheduled a supplemental hearing, which was held nearly 18 months later in October 2003. An unfavorable decision was issued, more than two years after a hearing was requested. He appealed to the Appeals Council but the file was misplaced. After 

Congressional intervention, the file was located and a decision remanding the 

case to the ALJ was issued in August 2007, more than three years after the 

ALJ decision. It has been more than 6 years since he first requested a hearing. 

Mr. B, who is impoverished, is still waiting for a new date for his remand hearing. 

INDIANA 

• Mr. I, a 46 year old resident of Indianapolis, Indiana, was a school bus driver. 

He developed high blood pressure, diabetes and lost vision in one eye. He could 

no longer work. He applied for benefits in February 2004. Without income, he 

had to choose food over his medication. His diseases became uncontrolled and 

he was found unconscious on his apartment floor. He was hospitalized and 

eventually died in February 2007. A favorable decision was issued in August 

2007, nearly six months after his death. 

IOWA 

• Ms. H is a Henderson, IA, resident and is now 48 years old. She filed her application in March 2005 and requested a hearing in December 2005. Nearly two 

years later, the hearing was held in November 2007, but she still has not received a decision five months later. All evidence was submitted before the hearing and there was no post-hearing development ordered by the ALJ. Ms. H has 

Hepatitis B and C and has had Interferon treatments for almost a year. She 

also has severe arthritis, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and depression. Her 

physician has written that she needs to rest three hours out of an eight hour 

work day and that pain would interfere frequently with her attention and concentration. 

KENTUCKY 

• Ms. R, age 53, of Richmond, Kentucky, worked as an inspector for a rubber operation. She had cancer and then disability due to a mastectomy, nerve damage, 

emphysema, hypertension, plus other conditions, including depression. She applied for benefits in October 2006. Her case was appealed to the ALJ level. 

However, before a hearing was scheduled, Ms. R died in March 2008. Her family continues the case. 

MARYLAND 

• Ms. W is a 30 year old former retail employee who lives in Westminster, Maryland. As a result of an automobile accident, she has various cervical, thoracic 

and lumbar spinal conditions which cause severe instability in her legs and affect her in all activities of daily living, including working. She has not been able 

to work since the accident and will be unable to work indefinitely. She filed her 

application for benefits in early 2006, which was denied. She requested a hearing in August 2007. The hearing was held on February 13, 2008, and a favorable decision was issued on March 27, 2008. While this story has had a positive 

end result, the path to getting there was anything but positive. By the time of 

her February 2008 hearing, she was homeless and had been living out of her 

beat-up, old car for months. She was unable to pay any bills, including rent, 

and she was evicted. During this time, she was unable to communicate with her 

attorney. She also could not obtain proper medical treatment, and her condition 

continued to deteriorate. She has finally found shelter, but is still awaiting receipt of her first benefits payment. 

MASSACHUSETTS 

• Ms. W lived in Worcester, MA, and was 45 years old when she died from endstage liver disease. She died in January 2008, while waiting for a hearing. She 

filed an application in 2005 but it was lost. She filed another application in late 

2006 or early 2007, which was denied, in part, because of failure to consider 

that her condition was expected to result in death. She obtained representation 

and requested a hearing in July 2007, but the appeal was not processed promptly pending receipt of the 2005 file, which had been lost. Between September 

2007 and January 2008, her attorney contacted the SSA district office and the 

ODAR hearing office on eight different occasions, requesting that the processing 

be expedited because Ms. W was in desperate need of funds and was feeling 

quite ill. In December 2007, the district office said the file had been sent to the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

85 

hearing office, but the hearing office denied receiving the file. On January 14, 

2008, the attorney finally received a letter from the hearing office acknowledging receipt of the hearing request. Ms. W died on January 18, 2008. 

• Mr. F is a 45 year old sheet metal mechanic from Fitchburg, MA, who worked 

for the same company for 25 years. He filed his application in May 2006 at the 

urging of his doctor. Following surgery for a cervical fusion, he has had complications, including decreased range of motion, severe and constant headaches, 

severe chronic pain, arm and hand numbness, and hip and back pain. His hearing request was filed in December 2006. While waiting more than two years for 

a hearing, he also developed severe anxiety and chest pain. By the time of his 

hearing in October 2007, he had lost his beloved home to foreclosure, lost both 

his wife’s and his cars to repossession, lost his boat, lost his 401(k) account, and 

nearly lost his 16 year old daughter to severe depression after they lost their 

home and were forced to move into the unfinished basement of a relative. Mr. 

F received a favorable ALJ decision in December 2007 after his attorney requested an expedited hearing. 

MICHIGAN 

• An attorney in Saginaw, Michigan, reports that the current delay between filing 

a request for hearing and the date of the hearing in his area ranges from 24 

to 28 months. This delay is on top of waiting anywhere from two months to four 

months to hear whether the initial application has been approved. While some 

ALJs will issue a decision on the record, it often takes one to two months to 

get the written decision and another one to four months for the individual to 

actually get paid. Many clients are experiencing a delay of three years or more 

between the time of initial application and the time they finally get their benefits. He has had numerous clients who have lost their homes, cars, and other 

property while waiting. Many of his clients have had to go through bankruptcy 

because of the delay. These financial stresses also contribute to family stresses 

and several of his clients have gotten divorced and attribute the divorce directly 

to financial stresses. 

• Mr. H is 61 years old and lives in Holland, Michigan. He was unable to work 

and applied for disability benefits in March 2005. He requested a hearing in 

September, 2005, more than 30 months ago. His attorney requested an ‘‘on the 

record’’ decision in the fall of 2007, after his case was transferred to another 

ODAR hearing office because of overload in the Grand Rapids, Michigan ODAR 

office. The ALJ denied the request and a hearing was held in November 2007. 

Two years and 8 months after requesting the hearing and 3 months after the 

hearing, he received a favorable decision from the ALJ in February 2008. As 

of April 10, 2008, he has received no benefits. Mr. H needs his disability benefits so his children do not need to continue to pay his bills. 

• Ms. M, a 46 year old woman living in Muskegon, Michigan, applied for disability benefits in March 2004 because she could no longer work due to degenerative osteoarthritis of the hips and spine, obesity, and psychological impairments. While waiting for her hearing, she received a foreclosure notice on her 

house and was behind on her utility bills. Her impairments worsened due to 

stress and uncertainty about where she would live. Her representative filed a 

request for an expedited hearing based on ‘‘dire need’’ in May 2006. After the 

hearing, the ALJ issued a favorable decision in September 2006 but she never 

received any of her benefits until December, 2006—far too late to save her 

house. 

MISSISSIPPI 

• Mr. C, a 58 year old former machinist who lives in Como, Mississippi, has severe neck, right shoulder and arm pain after . . . ound tumor was removed 

from his neck, and he is illiterate. These conditions prevent him from working. 

He filed his application for benefits in November 2004. He had a hearing January 9, 2008. During his wait for a hearing, he lost his home to foreclosure and 

was unable to afford required tests for his impairments. 

• Ms. D, a 47 year old former data entry clerk who lives in Doddsville, Mississippi, has fibromyalgia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and severe 

anxiety, which prevents her from performing even simple work tasks. She filed 

her application for benefits in March 2005. While waiting for a hearing, she has 

become homeless and unable to stay in a shelter, due to having to work for 

board, which she is unable to do. Because she has nowhere to cook, she only 

is able to eat food that does not require cooking. 

• Mr. L, a 45 year old former equipment operator who lives in Louisville, Mississippi, lost 20% to 30% of his lung capacity in a workplace accident. He also 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

86 

has severe migraine headaches, daily blackout spells, and severe post-traumatic 

stress disorder (PTSD), all of which prevent him from working. He filed an application for benefits in February 2006. While waiting for a hearing, he is 3 payments behind on his home and risking foreclosure, has lost all of his vehicles, 

and all utility bills are about 3 months behind. • Mr. J is a 50 year old former truck driver who lives in Leland, Mississippi. He 

has Type I diabetes, a pinched nerve, and back problems. He applied for benefits in March 2006. While waiting for a hearing, he has been forced to live in 

his truck for four months. • Mrs. G is a 53 year old former machine operator who lives in Greenwood, Mississippi. She has Type II diabetes, moderate degenerative disc disease, a herniated disc, and an esophageal restriction. She applied for benefits in October 

2006. She is currently waiting for a hearing date. Her home is in the final 

stages of foreclosure. • Mrs. K is a 53 year old former secretary who lives in Kosciusko, Mississippi. 

She has diabetes, protruding discs, spinal stenosis, arthritis, carpal tunnel syndrome, and depression. She applied for benefits in March 2006, and is waiting 

for a hearing date. She has just become homeless. 

MISSOURI 

• Mr. O, from Richmond, Missouri, died in the lobby of the ODAR hearing office 

while waiting to be called for his hearing on April 2, 2008. He was 49 years 

old and is survived by his wife and 4 children. He filed his SSI application for 

disability in November 2005, alleging inability to work due to uncontrolled diabetes with neuropathy, and shoulder and arm pain. He had worked for 14 years 

as a truck driver. His claim was denied in March 2006 and he promptly filed 

a request for hearing in April 2006. While waiting for hearing, he had numerous problems with child support authorities and his home was foreclosed upon. 

His representative filed a dire need request in July 2007 to expedite the hearing, but he did not receive a hearing date until February 2008, when the hearing was scheduled for April 2, 2008, the day he died. 

• Mrs. C is a 40 year old Marine Corps veteran who lives in Columbia, MO. She 

has been unable to work as an over-the-road trucker since December 2004 because of migraines, degenerative disc disease of the neck and lower back, and 

depression. Her husband, a truck mechanic, supports the family of four, including a daughter in college, on $1,900 monthly take-home pay. Mrs. C filed for 

benefits in April 2005 and requested a hearing, which took place in March 2007. 

Her claim was denied in December 2007 and she appealed to the Appeals Council in February 2008. In March 2008, Mrs. C traveled from Missouri to Colorado 

and had neurosurgery, following a diagnosis of Chiari Malformation. Her recovery is uncertain. 

• Mrs. Y is a 37 year old registered nurse, from Columbia, Missouri, who is married with three small children. She had a very good work record until she became incapacitated by pelvic and hip pain in December 2004, following the 

worsening of an injury during delivery of one of her children. Her claim for Title 

II benefits was denied in December 2006 and she requested a hearing. The family had already filed for bankruptcy. While waiting for a hearing, her condition 

worsened. She needs a rare surgery performed by only a few surgeons in the 

country and which requires a six-month recovery period in a hospital bed and 

another six months using a wheel chair. The family would need a different 

house that is accessible. Despite the financial and medical information, SSA did 

not expedite the hearing for 13 months. She finally received a favorable ALJ 

decision in February 2008. 

• Mr. L, a 26 year old former nurse’s assistant from St. Louis, Missouri, has 

grand mal seizures that have been occurring more and more frequently, and 

that make it dangerous for him to work. He had to stop working as a nurse’s 

assistant, as he had some severe seizures at work, which caused injury to him 

and the fear of injury to patients with whom he worked. He filed his application 

for benefits in August 2006. Since he has been awaiting a hearing, he has become homeless. He now lives with his girlfriend’s family, which is very difficult 

for Mr. L and his girlfriend’s family, as they are forced to care for and financially assist a young man who is not related to them, simply because they do 

not want to see him homeless. Mr. L has no health insurance, and he cannot 

afford the very expensive medications that are needed to help keep his seizures 

under better control. It is a ‘‘Catch 22’’ for him since he cannot work because 

he has seizures that are uncontrolled, yet he cannot control the seizures until 

he has the money to pay for the medications. He has been waiting almost two 

years to even be heard by an ALJ. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

87 

NEBRASKA 

• Ms. O is now 56 years old and lives in Omaha, Nebraska. By late 2004, symptoms from her bipolar disorder, combined with a new diagnosis of cerebral degeneration, worsened her coordination and cognitive skills, and precluded all 

work. In January 2005, she lost her job as a cashier at a grocery store where 

she had been employed for 15 years. She filed her claim in June 2005. She filed 

a request for hearing January 2006. On October 26, 2006 she asked for an ‘‘on 

the record’’ decision because she had been hospitalized for both her physical and 

mental impairments and her treating sources found significant limitations. The 

request was denied and she is still waiting for her hearing to be scheduled, 

more than two years after her appeal was filed. She has exhausted all of her 

savings and is dependent on county general assistance and the county mental 

health clinic for all of her treatment. 

• Mr. B, a 46 year old former cook who lives in Seward, Nebraska, has Bipolar 

I Disorder, unspecified organic brain syndrome, paranoid personality disorder 

and borderline personality disorder, which prevent him from working. He filed 

his application for Title II and SSI benefits in December, 2005. While waiting 

for a hearing, which was requested in July 2006, he has lost his Medicaid benefits and has been without medical treatment and prescriptions since July, 2007. 

• Ms. K, a 49 year old former dry cleaning clerk who lives in Omaha, Nebraska, 

has depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, adjustment disorder with anxiety, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and fibromyalgia, which prevent her 

from working. She filed her application for Title II benefits in October 2005 and 

requested a hearing in July 2006. Ms. K is in an abusive marital relationship, 

but has been unable to move out and find an alternative residence because she 

does not have the income and resources to leave her husband. Also, she is dependent upon her husband’s health insurance so that she can receive treatment 

and prescription medications for her disabling conditions. 

NEVADA 

• Ms. L is 45 years old and lives in Las Vegas, Nevada. She worked as a clerk 

for an area resort. She has back, hip, knee and breathing problems and suffers 

from pain including headaches and abdominal pain. She also has depression 

and has not been able to continue working. She applied for benefits in March 

2005 and was denied in August 2005. Her case was appealed to reconsideration 

and she received a decision, again denying the claim, nearly three years later 

in April 2008. Her case is now pending at the ALJ hearing level. She has received utility cut-off notices and foreclosure notices. She recently has contacted 

her Congressional representative to help expedite her case. 

NEW JERSEY 

• Mrs. E, a 50 year old former cardiac nurse who lives in Eastampton, New Jersey, has severe pain from impairments of her lower back, hips and shoulders 

(post-surgeries bilaterally) as well as depression and anxiety attacks. These conditions have made it impossible for her to work since 2003. She applied for benefits in 2005. While waiting for a hearing, she has exhausted all of her retirement savings and is now being threatened with foreclosure due to past-due 

mortgage payments. Her hearing has finally been scheduled for May 2008. 

• Mr. N, now 59 years old, from Northvale, New Jersey, was originally denied by 

an ALJ in February 2005. After appeals through the Federal court level, the 

case was remanded to the ALJ in November 2006. In January 2008, 14 months 

after the court remand order and 35 months after the first ALJ denial, the ALJ 

issued a fully favorable ‘‘on the record’’ decision. Mr. N has a severe mental impairment and has expressed suicidal ideation throughout the process. At the 

time the claim was approved in January 2008, foreclosure proceedings were 

started by his mortgage company. Mr. N is married with 2 teenage sons. 

• Mr. H was living in a homeless shelter in Hackensack, New Jersey, at the time 

of his February 2006 hearing. The ALJ, despite knowing of the client’s homeless 

situation and receiving a letter from the client threatening suicide, did not issue 

a decision until October 2006, more than 7 months after the hearing date. 

• Mr. F is a resident of Florence, New Jersey. He originally filed his claim for 

Title II and SSI benefits on December 1, 1997. He has mental retardation, a 

separate learning disability, and a herniated lumbar disc. His claim has been 

heard by an ALJ three separate times so far. After his last hearing, he was 

found to be disabled at a date after his Title II insured status expired. He has 

been eligible for SSI benefits of less than $600.00 per month and not the Social 

Security benefits of at least $1,000.00 per month he had worked to earn. The 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

88 

last ALJ decision was appealed to the Federal district court, which remanded 

the case on June 1, 2007. A fourth hearing is now scheduled for May 1, 2008. 

NEW MEXICO 

• Mr. R lives in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, and applied for benefits in November 

2005. His hearing was held in August 2007. Eight months later, he is still waiting for a decision from the ALJ. In the meantime, he tried to return to work 

in order to have money for living expenses. An acquaintance gave him a job 

with accommodations for his disability. Even with the accommodations, he was 

unable to complete even two months on the job, which SSA considers to be an 

unsuccessful work attempt. Now Mr. R is certain that he cannot work at any 

job. • Ms. A lives in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and applied for benefits in October 

2005. Her hearing was held in November 2007, more than two years later. She 

has had to give up her own home and move in with her adult children. She calls 

her attorney every month, and the attorney calls the hearing office to check on 

the status of the case. Her case is still in post-hearing review with the ALJ, 

even though there is no further development that needs to be completed. 

NEW YORK 

• Mr. R is 38 years old and lives in Brooklyn, New York. He has major depressive 

disorder, anorexia nervosa with severe weight loss, somatoform disorder, and 

generalized fatigue. He applied for SSI benefits in September 2003 and requested a hearing in March 2004. The ODAR hearing office failed to send a Notice of Hearing for the hearing, scheduled in December 2006. As a result, Mr. 

R did not appear and his hearing request was dismissed. He obtained representation in June 2007 after the dismissal. His attorney immediately contacted the 

ALJ and submitted all documents establishing that Mr. R was never informed 

of the hearing. She also sent all medical evidence she had obtained. The attorney asked the ALJ to reopen the case and to schedule an expedited hearing. 

The hearing was finally held in November 2007 and the ALJ issued a favorable 

decision in late November 2007. There still was a delay in receipt of benefits 

as Mr. R did not receive his first SSI past due installment payment until March 

2008 and his first SSI monthly payment until April 2008. 

While waiting for the hearing decision and benefits payments, Mr. R lost his 

welfare benefits and Medicaid, so he could not receive treatment. His anorexia 

nervosa was so extreme as to cause severe tooth decay requiring dentures. He 

received an eviction notice for his apartment but his attorney worked with the 

landlord to stave off eviction based on the fact that a new hearing was being 

scheduled. Because his welfare case was closed, Mr. R had no money. He had 

to go to food pantries for any donation and his neighbors helped him from time 

to time. He even had to borrow money to ride the subway to his hearing. 

• Ms. T lives in Ronkonkoma, New York. She is 55 years old. She was a pharmacy technician for over thirty years. She has been hospitalized three times in 

the past year for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). She has been 

unable to work since December 2005. She filed for benefits in January 2007 and 

requested a hearing in May 2007. Her husband’s income is not enough to meet 

their needs and they have had to borrow money from family in order to meet 

living expenses. This winter, they had no choice but to reduce their expenditure 

on oil for the household. They tried to reduce the household temperature, but 

this causes worsening of her lung symptoms. In addition, Ms. T is depressed 

and constantly worries about what will happen when the next month’s bills become due. 

NORTH CAROLINA 

• Mr. N lived in the Charlotte, North Carolina area. He was 57 years old and 

died in August 2007. As an adult, he obtained a degree in theology. From 1986 

to 1997, he worked doing maintenance on power generating stations. He developed heart disease and emphysema and, from 1998 to 2004, he did less strenuous work. In June 2005, he filed a claim for Title II disability benefits. His 

claim was denied and he requested a hearing in April 2006. During the wait, 

he developed a spot on his lung, but could not afford a CT scan for an accurate 

diagnosis. In May 2007, he received a foreclosure notice, lost his house, and had 

to move in with his daughter. He died in August 2007 of ischemic heart disease. 

In February 2008, months after his death, his claim was approved on informal 

remand to the DDS. 

• Ms. G, from the Charlotte, North Carolina area, was 50 years old when she 

died. She had worked in the garment trade, in management, and retail. She apmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

89 

plied for Title II benefits about January 2007 and requested a hearing in June 

2007. She died April 4, 2008, probably from heart disease with complications 

of chronic pancreatitis and hyperparathyroidism. Her attorney notes that the 

facts leave out that Ms. G was a funny, vital woman, with two children age 18 

and 21. She had left an abusive and controlling husband, and was trying to 

make it on her own, with absolutely no income. 

• Mr. E died on August 21, 2007, at age 52 from congestive heart failure, chronic 

atrial fibrillation, pneumonia, obesity and peripheral artery disease. He lived in 

the Charlotte, North Carolina area and worked for 15 years as a pipe insulator, 

and usually held a second job. He applied for Title II benefits in March 2006, 

which was denied, and requested a hearing in November 2006. Four months 

after his death, on December 27, 2007, a favorable decision was issued without 

hearing. 

• Ms. R, a 52 year old former cook and waitress who lives in Rocky Mount, North 

Carolina, has Major Depressive Disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, panic 

attacks, carpal tunnel nerve damage in both hands, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and migraine headaches. These conditions prevent her from 

working. She filed her application for benefits in November 2006. While waiting 

for a hearing she encountered numerous hardships, including: being on the 

verge of committing suicide; having extreme debilitating joint pain and disk 

pain; becoming homeless; and having frequent nausea due to migraine headaches. Her claim was approved in March 2008 by the ALJ after her attorney 

submitted a ‘‘dire need’’ request. 

OKLAHOMA 

• Mr. H, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, filed an application for disability benefits in 

March 2006, due to Hepatitis B and liver and renal failure. Unfortunately, he 

died on September 13, 2007, without having been able to attend a hearing. 

• Ms. B, from Tulsa, Oklahoma, filed an application in April 2006 and has not 

yet been scheduled for a hearing. She has Multiple Sclerosis and a mental impairment. In July 2007, her attorney wrote the hearing office requesting an ‘‘on 

the record’’ decision. She is so desperate that she is willing to change her date 

of disability onset to a later date. As of April 2008, no action has been taken 

on the request. Since the request was made, Ms. B has been hospitalized on 

at least two occasions for her psychiatric condition. 

• Ms. K, from the Tulsa, Oklahoma area, has a rare kidney disease and is passing 

a kidney stone almost once a week, which causes severe pain. She is diagnosed 

with Major Depressive Disorder, Graves Disease, recurrent and severe pain disorder, and recurrent kidney stones. Her treating physician has stated that she 

could not return to work. After her application was denied in 2006, she requested a hearing. In the summer of 2007, her attorney submitted additional 

evidence from her treating doctor. No action has been taken. She is in dire financial straits. 

• Mrs. M, a 33 year old former waitress and substitute school teacher, lives in 

Muskogee, Oklahoma. She has degenerative joint disease of the lumbar spine, 

neck and hands; hearing loss; left wrist injury; migraines; tingling/numbness in 

the left knee and left foot; right hip problems; dizziness and nausea. She filed 

her application for benefits in August 2005 and a request for hearing in May 

2006. Mrs. M is married with three children, including one son who is disabled. 

After a nearby plant explosion damaged their home in 2004, the family was 

forced to move into an apartment. Evicted in 2007, they have had no permanent 

residence since then and have been forced to live in a variety of temporary settings, including a shelter for women and children (Mrs. M’s husband slept in 

the car). After the 2007 eviction, Mrs. M’s attorney sent letters to the ODAR 

hearing office requesting an expedited hearing because of the family’s homelessness. Mrs. M received a fully favorable decision on March 26, 2008, nearly two 

years after she filed her request for a hearing. Her disabled child also received 

a favorable decision on March 25, 2008. On April 7, 2008, an SSA district office 

worker informed the attorney that both Mrs. M and her disabled child were in 

pay status. 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

• Mr. A was living in Augusta, South Carolina, when he was in a car accident. 

In his 30s, he had been working as a computer professional, but the accident 

resulted in a severe and chronic pain condition. He could not sit down, stand 

up or lay down for more than 15 minutes at a time. He applied for SSDI benefits in January 2003. His case was denied in September 2003. At reconsideration, his case was denied again in August 2004. His mother was required to 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

90 

return to work from her retirement to help him with medical costs. Mr. A died 

five months before his December 2006 hearing from an accidental overdose of 

pain medication. He would have been 41 years old this year. The ALJ denied 

the claim and his mother has continued the case by filing an appeal to the Appeals Council. No decision on the appeal has been received. 

TENNESSEE 

• Ms. B from Tiptinville, Tennessee, died in July 2006 just shy of her 52nd birthday due to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Ms. B was a school 

cafeteria cook her entire life and stopped working in September 2002 due to 

back and lung impairments. She was on an oxygen machine, as well as a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine. She filed her claim for benefits 

in 2002 and was denied for the first time by an ALJ in February 2005 after 

waiting 5 months for a decision from her first hearing in September 2004. The 

claim was appealed to the Appeals Council and two years later was remanded 

back to the ALJ to reconsider the treating doctor’s opinion. An ALJ allowed the 

claim with an ‘‘on the record’’ decision in April 2008. 

TEXAS 

• Ms. T is 34 years old and had a good work history. Four years ago, she developed gastrointestinal problems and lupus. She has no health insurance or other 

income to use for medical treatment, even though recent tests indicate she has 

had heart damage. She is 5 feet, 6 inches tall, but over the last four years her 

weight has been as low as 77 pounds, which should meet a listing of impairments. She has been waiting for a hearing over 1000 days even though her attorney has sent ‘‘dire need’’ letters and requested an ‘‘on the record’’ decision. 

The ALJ has denied the requests. A hearing has finally been set for later in 

April 2008. • Mr. D is a veteran and living in domiciliary care at an area VA Hospital. He 

was homeless and had cancer three times in a period of just over two years. 

During the second episode of cancer, he had a pulmonary embolism and was 

put on life support. The VA could not find his family to see about ceasing the 

life support and the veteran was in the nursing home for a period of time. Miraculously, Mr. D survived and then had to have surgery for a brain tumor. He 

had to wait over one year for his hearing. There were thousands of pages of 

medical records in his file. At the hearing, he and his attorney learned that the 

hearing office had not sent the medical records to the medical expert witness 

for pre-hearing review. This delayed the decision. Mr. D eventually received a 

favorable decision and his benefits. • A woman in the Paris, Texas area had heart and kidney problems. She had 

a stent inserted so she could have dialysis. She was waiting to start dialysis 

when her condition deteriorated and she died. Three weeks later, she received 

a favorable ALJ decision. Her attorney had requested an ‘‘on the record’’ decision before the claimant died, but to no avail. 

VIRGINIA 

• Ms. H was a 47-year-old receptionist living in a nursing home in Fairfax, Virginia, after having been homeless on and off since 2003. She had an extensive 

medical history which included cervical, dorsal and lumbar spinal strains, 

pinched nerve, shoulder pain, uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, diabetic neuropathy, nephritic proteinuria, hypertension, obesity and dyslipidemia. She also 

had severe kidney disease including an acute episode of renal failure. In June 

2007, she was hospitalized with a myocardial infarction after which she had two 

strokes. One in the cerebellum was complicated by hydrocephalus requiring 

neurosurgical relief. 

Ms. H first applied for SSI and Title II benefits in January 2004, having last 

worked in October 2003. She had an ALJ hearing in August 2005 and was denied again in October 2005. She was not represented at that hearing. She reapplied on her own sometime in 2006 and obtained legal assistance in July 

2006. Another request for hearing was filed in March 2007. Ms. H had a heart 

attack in June 2007 but her legal representative was not informed until August 

2007. The representative immediately requested a favorable ‘‘on the record’’ decision. The ODAR hearing office did not respond until January 2008. Ms. H received her Notice of Award on February 4, 2008. She received her retroactive 

benefits on March 28, 2008. She died on April 3, 2008. 

WASHINGTON 

• Ms. S is a 38 year old resident of Seattle, Washington, who is dealing with a 

combination of autoimmune diseases, which have progressively worsened. She 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

91 

had to drop out of medical school because of her medical condition. She cannot 

work and her chronic disease continues to worsen. She applied for benefits in 

May 2003. Her representative sent briefs to the ODAR hearing office in February 2004 and July 2005. Her case was denied by the ALJ, remanded by the 

Appeals Council, denied by the ALJ again, and eventually appealed to Federal 

district court. The court remanded the case for a new ALJ hearing. As of April 

2008, her case is still pending for a third ALJ hearing, yet unscheduled. • Mr. W is 48 years old and was a manager at a social services organization in 

the area of Oshkosh, Wisconsin. He experienced a worsening of mental illness 

(neurotic depression) and stabbed himself. He survived but endured homelessness. He lived in a boarding house for a time. He was getting food from shelters 

and the Red Cross. He filed for benefits in March 2006 and was finally approved for benefits in February 2008. 

CONCLUSION 

As you can see from the circumstances of these claimants’ lives and deaths, delays 

in decision-making on eligibility for disability programs can have devastating effects 

on people already struggling with difficult situations. On behalf of people with disabilities, it is critical that SSA be given substantial and adequate funding to make 

disability decisions in a timely manner and to carry out its other mandated workloads. We appreciate your continued oversight of the administration of the Social 

Security programs and the manner in which those programs meet the needs of people with disabilities. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I would be happy to answer questions. 

ON BEHALF OF: 

American Council of the Blind 

American Foundation for the Blind 

American Network of Community Options and Resources 

Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation 

Easter Seals, Inc. 

Epilepsy Foundation 

Goodwill Industries International, Inc. 

Inter-National Association of Business, Industry and Rehabilitation 

National Alliance on Mental Illness 

National Association of Disability Representatives 

National Disability Rights Network 

National Multiple Sclerosis Society 

National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives 

NISH 

Paralyzed Veterans of America 

Research Institute for Independent Living 

The Arc of the United States 

Title II Community AIDS National Network 

Tourette Syndrome Association 

United Cerebral Palsy 

United Spinal Association 

f 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

Ms. Mara Mayor is on the AARP Board of Directors in Bethesda. 

Ms. Mayor. 

STATEMENT OF MARA MAYOR, MEMBER, AARP BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, BETHESDA, MARYLAND 

*Ms. MAYOR. Good afternoon. Thank you very much Chairman 

McDermott, Ranking Member McCrery, Members of the Committee. 

AARP appreciates this opportunity to give our perspective on 

what underfunding the Social Security Administration means for 

Americans, especially those who are 50 and over. I would just add 

as a parenthesis, my husband is a retired attorney who volunteers 

at a local social services agency where one of the things he does 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

92 

is he works with people on disability appeals on a regular basis, 

so I have sort of an extra view from the trenches on this one. 

The programs under the jurisdiction of the Social Security Administration are for not only the promise of earned and deserved 

benefits, but also the promise that they will be reasonably, in fact 

compassionately, administered. Unfortunately, as we are hearing, 

today SSA is no longer the gold standard of service it once was. 

The deterioration in service reflects an increased workload and a 

pernicious pattern of underfunding. SSA’s core responsibility is 

managing the Old Age and Survivor’s Insurance Program, the Disability Insurance Program, and the Supplemental Security Income 

Program. 

These tasks will be even more challenging as the boomers apply 

for Social Security benefits. You have heard numbers. Just one interesting statistic, in the next 10 years alone, nearly 13 million 

new beneficiaries will be added to the roles, which translates to 

16,000 per working day. That is a lot of people. The boomer retirement comes at a time when the SSA field offices are, as you know, 

strained. Despite the hard work of thousands of dedicated Social 

Security employees and managers, SSA is dealing with service 

issues that would make even the strongest of organizations blanch. 

To complicated the problem, SSA now plays a key role in assessing the correct premium for Medicare Parts B and D, and processes 

applications for the low-income subsidy of Medicare Part D. That 

is not all. In recent years, the agency has become an important element in the nation’s homeland security efforts. By conducting millions of Social Security number employment verifications and other 

immigration related activities. Given the enormous strain the 

Agency already faces in meeting its obligations, AARP has grave 

concerns about proposals to expand these types of activities. 

To make matters worse, as you know, resources have only been 

shrinking. SSA is at its lowest staffing level in 35 years despite 

having about twice the number of beneficiaries it had 35 years ago. 

In addition, we know that some field offices have been closed or 

consolidated. The numbers may be modest, as the Commissioner 

indicated, but AARP is very concerned about the trend. If the trend 

continues in this direction, essential services will slip even further. 

AARP Members and the general public are counting on the fact 

that Social Security will be there financially when they retire or become disabled, and need to be able to count on the fact that the 

Social Security office will be there. You have heard about the infrastructure, I won’t go into that, it is clearly a big issue. Clearly important resources are needed to ensure the Agency can meet its 

workload, and it is not happening and so the question is why. Although SSA’s administrative expenses are paid from the trust 

funds, these expenses are subject to non-Social Security spending 

caps and across the board cuts. This means funding has been artificially low in order to comply with spending targets unrelated to Social Security. As a result, over time there has been a steadily increasing gap between SSA’s needs and the final appropriation. Reducing funding as though SSA actually competed for discretionary 

dollars has ill-served the Agency and the millions who rely on it. 

We want to stress the impact on the American people, and particularly those who are 50 and over, of these expanding responsibilmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

93 

ities coupled with less adequate resources. Clearly, inefficient funding will hamper the Agency’s ability to serve the wave of boomers 

as they retire, and it will make it impossible to make significant 

headway in reducing the horrendous backlog of services in its disability program. While the disability programs are potentially 

available to anyone regardless of age, it is those over 50 who make 

up a major percent of their recipients. 

AARP believes Congress must respond to this funding crisis in 

several ways. Provide the Agency with the resources it needs to address the disability backlog, reject any further expansion of administrative activities not directly related to the Agency’s core mission, 

and exclude SSA funding from any domestic spending cap. We need 

to keep the promise of reasonable administration of programs overseen by the Social Security Administration, programs on which the 

American people, and particularly those 50 plus rely. 

On behalf of the more than 39 million Americans who are Members of AARP, I thank you for this opportunity and would be happy 

to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mara Mayor follows:] 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

94 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.018
95 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.019
96 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.020
97 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.021
98 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.022
99 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.023
100 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.024
101 

f 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony. 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.025
102 

Mr. Skwierczynski, who is the president of the American Federation of Government Employees National Council of Social Security 

Field Operations Locals, your testimony please. 

STATEMENT OF WITOLD SKWIERCZYNSKI, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SOCIAL SECURITY FIELD OPERATIONS 

LOCALS, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 

*Mr. SKWIERCZYNSKI. Thank you, Congressman McDermott, 

Congressman McCrery, and the rest of the Committee, thanks for 

inviting me. 

I am with the union, I represent 50,000 bargaining employees 

who work for Social Security, and we certainly have a crisis due 

to the failure of the Administration and Congress to properly fund 

the Agency. The witnesses here and the Commissioner have already talked about some of the disconnects that have occurred with 

regards to the disability process. 

Part of the problem is that not only have we been forced to deal 

with an incredibly increasing workload in the disability process, 

but Congress has asked us to do other work, such as the Medicare 

D subsidy, Medicare B appeals, and more stringent evidentiary 

standards for Social Security number work. If in fact there is some 

effort to expand our work with no match in e-verify workloads in 

the immigration area, it will require an incredible infusion of resources not only for staff but also to upgrade our computers. 

Applicants who file for disability hearings, from the time they file 

the initial claim, takes about two years to get a decision. That is 

outrageous. Right now, in this fiscal year the Agency is only going 

to do 33 percent of its continuing disability reviews and 60 percent 

of its SSI reconsiderations, ensuring that many un-reviewed beneficiaries will incur unnecessary overpayments. Fifty-one percent of 

the people who tried to call a field office last year got no answer, 

and 25 percent who called the 800 number couldn’t get through. 

Right now, with the baby boomers filing initial claims, retirement 

claims this year, we have about 16-percent increase in traffic into 

our offices. Efforts by the public to try to communicate with SSA 

employees have become a frustrating experience characterized by 

delays, busy signals and unanswered calls. 

Clearly we need more resources. We would suggest that an $11 

billion administrative budget in fiscal year 2009 would be a start, 

and also an increase of 5,000 FTE over current numbers would be 

a start. Enacting off budget legislation for the SSA administrative 

budget is the only conceivable solution to the yearly struggle 

against budget caps and Congressional scoring requirements that 

results in inadequate SSA budgets year after year, staffing cuts, 

and the consequent poor service. Off budget could solve the absurdity of a system where the trust fund is making huge surpluses, but 

it is used for everything but SSA’s resource requirements. 

We also would recommend federalizing the disability program 

and eliminating the current Federal/state bifurcation in deciding 

disability claims. What we have now is we have 54 different disability systems out there with different qualities of workers, different rules, and different training systems. There is no consistency. In some states the approval rates are 55 percent on initial 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

103 

claims, others are 25 percent with no evidence that, in those states 

with higher approval rates, the people are more sick than in other 

states. The current system no longer makes sense, it needs to be 

federalized. It would provide consistency not only to the staff, but 

to the decisionmaking process and to the training. 

The most disturbing impact of the budget shortage is that the 

Administration is using the lack of resources as an excuse to initiate fundamental changes in SSA’s evidentiary standards and the 

way the Agency operates that will permanently damage Social Security as a responsible social program and harm the American public who rely on Social Security as their primary source for retirement, survivor, and disability security. The major transformation 

supported by the administration is to diminish the historical personal service role of SSA employees in the claims process. If claims 

can be filed by the public without employee review and assistance, 

the savings to administrative expenses certainly could be substantial. 

But what would be the impact of that change? Already this year, 

SSA has made some major changes in evidentiary requirements. 

No longer do we ask for proof of age from applicants for retirement 

benefits if their allegation upon retirement matches their allegation 

when they got their Social Security card. No longer to we check on 

somebody’s citizenship, again if their allegation matches when they 

first got a card to when they filed for a claim. No longer do we seek 

wag earnings information, that is earnings not posted on their 

earnings record of individuals who file for retirement even though 

that information would tend to increase their benefits. 

All three evidentiary requirements I just mentioned hinge on an 

SSA employee to review the evidence and certify its accuracy. 

Eliminating such evidence enhances the opportunity for fraud and 

incorrect payments. 

SSA intends to introduce a new Internet Social Security benefit 

application in September. The goal is to allow claimants to file applications on the Internet without intervention or review by a Social Security employee. Currently, all Internet claims are reviewed 

by a Social Security employee. 

We have done surveys with the people who do review those 

claims. 61 percent of our claims reps who review these claims have 

informed us that over 50 of the claims they review, the individuals 

have chosen months of election to start their retirement benefits 

that are to their disadvantage. If you have no reviews, you will 

have millions of people who will be filing claims that will be choosing a pathway to retirement which are not in their best interests. 

Mandatory reviews and contacts ensure advice and assistance on 

advantageous month of election, pursuit of benefits for other eligible family members that ensure that the claimants understand the 

impact of their benefit choices whether they file for widow’s benefits or retirement benefits or spouse’s benefits, and also that they 

get an explanation of their reporting responsibilities. 

The Internet application also eliminates a number of questions 

which are designed to ferret our fraudulent people who are retiring 

that aren’t really retiring and also to elicit earnings from the military or the railroad which would tend to increase their benefits. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

104 

The stated Administration goal is to eliminate the claims review 

so that it will be the applicant’s responsibility to make the right 

choices without help. As a substitute to employee assistance, the 

administration plans to provide pop-up screens and expanded access to third parties. Rather than have trained government employees with a public service motivation assisting claimants, SSA plans 

to shift that role to third parties who will charge fees for their services and will have minimal training and knowledge of the program. 

The Administration has shifted its entire public relations program 

to a push for SSA claimants to file Internet claims. Some communications offer the public no other option. 

Concurrent with its emphasis on Internet claims, SSA has accelerated its office closing program with totally removes the option of 

face to face service to many SSA customers. Last year, the Commission closed 17 offices, which was the highest number of offices 

closed in the history of this Agency. Despite what the Commissioner said, you ought to review his numbers, the only offices that 

were open last year were enumeration centers which are not full 

workload offices, they just do Social Security number work. 

SSA’s evidentiary changes and Internet claims without employee 

review will undoubtedly lead to an increase in fraud and incorrect 

payments. It will also lead to the transformation of a respected social agency from one where employees were trained to personally 

assist the applicants to benefits to navigate a complex system at 

a time of personal crisis when people are filing for retirement or 

disability or survivors benefits, perhaps because of the death of 

their husband or their wife or their mother or their father, to an 

agency that expects claimants to fend for themselves. If such claimants make unwise choices, it is their problem. 

Is this the Social Security Administration that Congress wants? 

If not, I would strongly urge that you ask some hard questions of 

the people who run Social Security and engage in some serious 

oversight and enact legislation preventing this tragic transformation of Social Security from occurring. 

I also ask that you please support Congressman Higgins’ bill, 

H.R. 5110, which will require SSA to provide notice and rationale 

to Congress of any office closing, and also require the SSA Commissioner to submit the Agency budget directly to Congress, which is 

optional under the independent Agency system we have, rather 

than to OMB. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Witold Skwierczynski follows:] 

Prepared Statement of Witold Skwierczynski, President of the American 

Federation of Government Employees National Council of Social Security 

Field Operations Locals, Baltimore, Maryland 

I thank Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery and Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present this statement regarding the Social Security 

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

in public service due to years of inadequate funding of the Agency’s administrative 

expenses. 

As President of the American Federation of Government Employee’s (AFGE) National Council of Social Security Administration Field Operations Locals and 

Spokesperson for the AFGE SSA General Committee, 

I present this statement on behalf of approximately 50,000 bargaining unit Social 

Security employees who work in over 1500 facilities nationwide. The employees represented by the Union work in Field Offices, Program Service Centers, Teleservice 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

105 

(800 Number) Centers, Regional Offices of Quality Assurance, Offices of Disability 

Adjudication and Review, Regional Offices, Headquarters Offices, the Wilkes-Barre 

Data Operations Center, and other sites throughout the country where SSA employees take, process and review claims for retirement, survivor, disability benefits and 

appeal requests for SSA and SSI benefits. 

The primary message the Union wants to convey to this Committee is that Social 

Security is in dire need of both additional administrative funding and Congressional 

oversight of its service delivery practices. The crisis in the disability program as 

manifested in the obscene delays in processing disability hearings appeals is primarily due to the failure of the President and Congress to adequately fund administrative expenses. Staffing levels have become much too low in SSA. This has affected not only the disability workloads but also all work that the Agency is required to accomplish. 

Unacceptable backlogs have escalated and critical integrity workloads are not 

done. The employees who work in the SSA front lines and interact with the public 

are assigned impossible workloads. They are expected to increase their productivity, 

interview more and more claimants, maintain a high level of accuracy, provide 

friendly and compassionate service while interacting with the public while Congress 

and the President not only assign more programs and workloads to the Agency but 

do so while reducing staff. Dedicated veteran employees are fed up with the deteriorating stressful work environment and count the days till they can retire. SSA 

changes priorities and engages in crisis management efforts to plug the rapidly multiplying holes in the dam. Employees are not asked or encouraged to provide input 

regarding what should be done to solve the Agency’s problems. Instead they are just 

told what to do. The unfortunate victims of the decisions that have been made to 

starve the Agency are the American public who rely on SSA to provide them and 

their families with retirement, disability and survivor’s benefit security. Also affected are the poor aged, blind and disabled who rely an SSA to provide subsistence 

SSI benefits so that they can survive. These victims are frequently faced with delays 

of over 2 years when they file for either SSA or SSI disability benefits. Only 30 % 

of initial claims for disability are allowed due to an archaic system in which state 

employees make decisions on whether claimants are eligible for a Federal disability 

program. If their initial claim is denied, the applicant is faced with a nightmare scenario of delays of one to three years before their appeal is decided by the Agency. 

Claimants find it difficult to interact with a Social Security employee when they 

need assistance. 25 % of the calls to the 800 number are unanswered. If a claimant 

calls their local office they can’t get through 51% of the time. Due to the decision 

to save money by closing offices, many claimants face lengthy commutes to find an 

SSA office. When they arrive they face lengthy waits. If they try to file their application through the internet, they must confront a complex set of questions and choices 

with little assistance. Consequently, re-contacts by SSA employees are virtually universal and can cause lengthy delays in the claims process. In order to stretch resources, SSA has loosened evidentiary standards. Standard evidence such as proof 

of age, citizenship and development of recent wages not posted on a wage earner’s 

earnings record is no longer requested in most cases. Thus, more ineligible claimants are approved for erroneous payments and more claimants are paid incorrectly. 

Once applicants begin receiving benefits, SSA can no longer review the accuracy of 

disability and SSI benefits by conducting Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) at 

the required levels due to staff shortages. In FY 08 the Agency will only conduct 

33% of scheduled CDRs. Consequently, thousands of individuals who have recovered 

from their disabilities simply continue to collect benefits. Thousands of SSI recipients who have not reported changes in their income, resources or living arrangements continue to be paid incorrectly since the Agency doesn’t have enough staff to 

review their cases and conduct redeterminations. In FY 08, SSA will only process 

60% of scheduled SSI redeterminations. When their cases are reviewed, SSA assesses these SSI recipients with overpayments which are difficult or impossible to 

collect from a marginal population. 

Budget cuts and a shortage of personnel have been an issue at Social Security 

for over 20 years, but this Agency is now using both of them as an excuse to make 

a number of ‘‘backdoor’’ changes that AFGE feels will disadvantage the millions of 

Americans who are part of the ‘‘Baby Boom Generation.’’ These changes include 

loosening evidentiary requirements that will enhance the possibility of fraud. In addition, SSA is planning to reduce the assistance provided to claimants when making 

their choices of when to effectuate retirement benefits. Such changes will increase 

the likelihood that claimants will make choices against their interests. This is all 

part of a plan to save money by shifting service to internet claims without employee 

review. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

106 

Offices around the United States are being closed at an alarming rate. In 2007 

SSA closed 17 offices—the highest number in SSA history. These offices are closed 

without examination of the adverse impact that such closures have on the affected 

community. 

SSA staffing shortages have encouraged 3rd party businesses to fill the void and 

offer to assist claimants in their interactions with SSA. Such assistance, of course, 

is for a price. Few claimants attempt to navigate the SSA hearings appeal system 

without representation. However, SSA has plans to encourage and assist 3rd parties 

in expanding the menu of services that they offer claimants for a fee. SSA traditionally has provided assistance to claimants as part of the FICA taxes that wage earners have paid during their working lives. Now SSA has plans to encourage claimants to fend for themselves and use 3rd parties who charge a fee instead of SSA 

employees. Expanding 3rd party involvement in the claims process due to budgetary 

constraints can only lead to pressure for future contracting out of core SSA services. 

Disability 

Since Commissioner Astrue’s arrival at SSA, he has made a few positive changes 

to address the short term problems regarding disability hearing backlogs, such as 

targeting cases older than 1000 days and accelerating the rollout of the quick decision determination process throughout the agency. He has worked with OPM and 

Congress to hire 175 additional Administrative Law Judges (ALJs). He terminated 

most aspects of the ill conceived Disability Service Improvement plan initiated by 

his predecessor Jo Anne Barnhart. However, Commissioner Astrue has decided to 

hire and train insufficient support staff that each new ALJ relies upon to prepare 

cases for hearing and write and process post-hearing decisions. The Agency intends 

to hire only 143 support staff for the new judges. SSA budgets 4.3 support staff for 

every ALJ. 0.8 support staff per the new ALJs falls extremely short of what is necessary to properly assist the ALJs. Failure to provide adequate support staff is a 

recipe for future disaster and will probably lead to continuing backlogs. The support 

staff is needed to schedule hearings, assemble case files and evidence, work with 

attorneys to insure smooth hearings, order and schedule consultative examinations 

and to write and process the eventual decisions. Absent such support, the system 

breaks down. Thus, we urge Congress to insist that SSA provide each ALJ with the 

staff necessary for them to do their job. 

Commissioner Astrue has reassigned Agency attorneys to review cases awaiting 

hearing. These attorneys are empowered to reverse denied reconsideration cases if 

the evidence indicates a disability. This has been done in an effort to reduce the 

752,000 case backlog that existed at the beginning of FY 08. AFGE feels that SSA 

should expand this effort by utilizing non-attorneys within the Agency that have 

displayed the ability to make appellate decisions. SSA has previously used non-attorneys in this roll with no evidence of adverse effect in the decision making process 

(e.g., Adjudicative Officers). The requirement of a law degree for this task limits the 

Agency’s ability to expand the effort to concentrate energies to reduce the disability 

hearings case backlog and the lengthy processing times. 

SSA’s approach to disability, past and present, fails to address the problems and 

inadequacies of the State Disability Determination Services (DDS). AFGE strongly 

believes that if problems with inconsistent decisions at the initial claims level are 

addressed, appeals will diminish. Disability claimants deserve consistent initial 

claims decisions and payments as soon as possible in the claims process. 

Unfortunately, the chances for a claimant to be approved at the initial level have 

a lot to do with where they live and their income rather than the nature of their 

disability. That’s inherent in the system. Each state has different criteria for hiring 

Disability Examiners. Each state provides them with different pay and benefit packages. Some are unionized—others are unorganized. Each state provides somewhat 

different training to their employees. Employee retention rates vary dramatically 

from state to state. In effect, there are 50 different disability programs when there 

should be one. 

For example, State Agency Operations records indicate that those who can obtain 

medical attention early and often have a better chance of being approved for benefits than those who have limited income or resources. (See Attachment A) Nationwide, those applying for Social Security disability have a much greater chance of 

being approved than those who only apply for the Supplement Security Income (SSI) 

program. 

So far in FY 08 more than 61 percent of Social Security disability claims for benefits are approved in the Washington DC DDS, while just 30 percent of those who 

file for benefits are approved in the South Carolina DDS. New Hampshire approves 

the most initial SSI only disability cases with more than a 55 percent allowance 

rate. However, residents of Michigan, Ohio, Alabama, South Carolina and Georgia 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

107 

1GAO Report 04–121, ‘‘Strategic Workforce Planning Needed to Address Human Capital Challenges Facing the Disability Determination Services’’ 

are approved less than 30 % of the time by their respective DDS. The concurrent 

disability process shows inexplicable variable allowance rates depending on the 

state of residence. Allowance rates are low in every state. In New Hampshire and 

Washington the allowance rate is slightly more than 40 percent of the concurrent 

SSI/SSA initial disability claims. Less than 18 percent of those filing concurrent disability claims are approved in Georgia and Ohio. There is no evidence to show that 

residents of some states are twice as susceptible to become disabled as residents in 

other states. Obviously, different state initial claims approval rates have more to do 

with the bifurcated system than the health of residents of these states. Claimants 

are entitled to consistent decisions regardless of their state of residence or whether 

they are filing for Social Security or SSI disability benefits. 

According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO 1), a majority of DDS’s 

do not conduct long-term, comprehensive workforce planning, which should include 

key strategies for recruiting, retaining, training and otherwise developing a workforce capable of meeting long-term goals. The State DDS’ lack uniform minimum 

qualifications for Disability Examiners (DE’s) and have high turnover rates for employees and do not provide ongoing training for DE’s. 

AFGE is convinced that SSA is not able or willing to correct these problems. 

AFGE has expressed these concerns to the Subcommittee for several years and has 

seen little improvement with the State DDS situation. The State DDSs are required 

to use different disability criteria than those at the hearing levels. This has not been 

addressed by this Administration. It is a key problem that must be reconciled in 

order to reform the disability system. AFGE strongly believes that the only way 

to resolve the problems that plague the State DDS’ is to federalize them. 

This will bring consistency to the initial claims decisions in the same way 

that the Supplemental Security Income program that was established in 

1974 created a uniform system of benefits for low income blind, disabled and 

aged population. 

As AFGE has emphasized in previous testimony before the House Ways and 

Means Social Security Subcommittee, the Disability Claims Manager (DCM) pilot 

(another SSA initiative) proved to be highly successful in addressing many problems 

in the disability program. DCMs were responsible for making both the entitlement 

and disability decisions for initial disability claims. Processing time was significantly better than the bifurcated process. In fact, the DCM processing time of 62 

days was just over half of SSA’s initial disability claim processing time goal of 120 

days. Customer service improved dramatically and claimants expressed record high 

satisfaction rates with the DCM. The public preferred a process which allowed them 

to interact with the decision maker. Currently, the only interaction with the disability decision maker occurs at the hearing level when the ALJ conducts the hearing. Observation of the impact of the alleged disabling condition and evaluation of 

the credibility of the claimant is a prime reason for the high percentage of reversals 

at the hearing level. If the system was reformed so that claimants could interact 

with decision makers at all levels, it could result in improvements in the initial 

claims process. 

SSA surveys indicated that the public preferred the DCM caseworker approach 

to the current process. The DCM was a positive step in ensuring the public that 

consistent and equitable disability decisions were made by the Agency. Unfortunately, despite the positive DCM experience, SSA terminated the pilot. Although 

SSA contended that the DCM would cost more than the current process, the pilot 

was terminated before valid statistical data could be compiled regarding full program costs. 

It appears that the primary reason SSA terminated the DCM pilot was due to 

State resistance. Such resistance certainly was not based on a poor pilot result. Instead the decision appears to have been based on political considerations and the 

fear of losing work. Although the DDS system is completely funded by SSA, DDS 

employees are State workers enmeshed in their respective state bureaucracies. Unfortunately this split system is a major reason that so many disability cases are appealed and that the system is broken. Under the DCM pilot, even claimants who 

were denied expressed satisfaction with the process since they had the opportunity 

to have the decision explained to them by the DCM. Congress should be very concerned when SSA spends millions of dollars for a process that demonstrably improves the disability processing time and results in high claimant satisfaction but 

is rejected for political reasons. The concerns of the states are understandable in 

view of their unacceptably poor performance regarding decision consistency from 

state to state and their poor processing time in comparison to the DCM. However, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

108 

2SSA Budget FY 09 

the only real criteria should be the level of service that is provided to the claimant. 

Using customer service as a measure, the DCM exceeds State DDS performance in 

virtually every category. 

AFGE recommended to Commissioner Astrue that he reconsider the Agency decision to terminate the DCM pilot and implement the position of the DCM at SSA 

as soon as possible. The Commissioner has not acted on AFGE’s recommendation. 

The Union is willing to work with the Commissioner in an incremental approach 

to improving the disability process. We understand there will need to be changes 

in policy, processes and institutional arrangements, as well as funding to implement 

the DCM. However, we feel that federalizing the entire disability process is a key 

to improving disability claims processing and correcting the current appellate nightmare. 

Legislative amendments to the Social Security Act would be necessary to allow 

SSA workers to make disability decisions; however, the crisis in disability processing requires immediate and long-term changes. When trained to make medical 

decisions, SSA employees can provide immediate relief to backlogged Disability Determination Agencies and provide faster and better service to the public by serving 

as a single point of contact. The pilot demonstrates that the public likes the DCM, 

employees enthusiastically support it, employees are capable of mastering all aspects of the claims process and that it provides substantially better service than the 

current disability product. As a short-term approach not requiring legislative 

change, AFGE is supportive of the ‘‘Technical Expert for Disability’’ position. It 

would provide high quality, trained field office employees the tools to assist disability claimants in both programmatic and medical issues, provide professional, 

personalized, service to applicants, focus the disability interview, make or recommend disability decisions, and assist the DDS’s in their development and backlogs. This position could be utilized in the Commissioner’s efforts to create a quick 

decision process for those claimants who are obviously disabled. In fact, training and 

enabling Technical Experts for Disability at the SSA field office will eliminate the 

current hand off to the DDS of such claims. This should further streamline the process and result in even faster decisions. 

AFGE Recommendations— 

• AFGE strongly urges Congress to enact legislation which permits Federal employees to make disability decisions without requiring the approval of States 

and take the necessary action to ensure the DCM is part of the solution to the 

disability problem. 

• AFGE requests that Congress examine the current combined Federal and state 

role in the disability claims system and enact legislation to federalize the disability claims process. 

• AFGE recommends that Congress urge the Commissioner to eliminate the requirement that post reconsideration disability adjudicators require a law degree. 

SSA Budget and Staffing Cuts 

Based on the President’s proposed budget for the next fiscal year, SSA will have 

lost more than 9% of its staff in just four years. SSA has experienced a dramatic 

increase in workloads as members of the Baby Boom Generation reach their peak 

years for becoming disabled and start filing for retirement benefits in 2008. From 

2001 to 2007, productivity climbed an average of 2.5% per year, for a total gain of 

13.1% since 2001. SSA expects the increase in productivity for FY 2008 to be 2% 2. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

109 

3SSA, FY 06 Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees 

4President Bush Budget for FY 08 for SSA, pg 1030 

FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 

Budget Proposed 9,379,324 9,403,000 9,496,000 9,677,000 10,327,000 

Budget Enacted 9,178,556 9,286,000 9,294,000 9,745,000 

SSA Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) 62,937 63,131 58,985 60,064 60,293 

SSA Medicare Modernization (FTEs) 1,268 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal SSA FTEs (including OIG) 64,205 63,131 58,985 60,064 60,293 

Overtime/Lump Sum 

Leave 

2,992 2,389 1,307 2,231 2,245 

Overtime (associated w/ 

Medicare Modernization) 

1,567 0 0 0 0 

Subtotal Overtime 

Lump Sum Leave 

4,559 2,398 1,307 2,231 2,245 

68,7643 65,5294 61,292 62,295 62,538 

Total SSA Work years (including OIG) (¥3,235) (¥4,237) (+1003) (+243) 

Unless there is a turnaround in Social Security’s operating budget, SSA’s ability 

to get its work done will completely break down within the next five to ten years. 

According to SSA’s own records, 1 out of 4 callers failed to get through on Social 

Security’s 800-number on any given day. Those who called any of the 1260 field offices for service in FY 07 did not have their calls answered 51% of the time. People 

line up before dawn outside many offices. The time it takes to pay disability claims 

to the most vulnerable people we serve can be measured in years instead of days 

or months. 

The President’s budget request for SSA in FY 09 is $10.327 billion. This budget 

would result in an increase in staff of only 229 FTE. After years of cuts, a modest 

increase is better than nothing but hardly enough to allow the Agency to reduce its 

backlogs while continuing to process its day to day work. Both the House and the 

Senate Budget Committees have recommended that the President’s budget be increased by $240 million. AFGE and other groups interested in the SSA administrative cost crisis recommended that SSA be allocated $11 billion in administrative cost 

or $673 million over the President’s budget. This amount would restore some lost 

staff and allow the Agency the opportunity to significantly reduce backlogs. 

Currently, Congress borrows from the Social Security Trust Fund to offset deficit 

spending and finance the war in Iraq and other budget priorities. Meanwhile, Social 

Security is given barely enough funding to accomplish its basic service demands, resulting in poor public service, excessive delays and billions of dollars of improper payments. This is then case even though the trust fund collects $ billions more that 

is spent every year. 

The Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 provided that SSA FICA taxes and benefits payments were ‘‘off budget.’’ Congress later interpreted that SSA’s Limitation 

on Administrative Expenses (LAE) was not covered by the Omnibus Reconciliation 

Act of 1990, although the Social Security Act stipulates that administrative costs 

for the Social Security program must be financed by Social Security Trust Funds. 

Since the SSA LAE (e.g., staffing, office space, supplies, technology, etc.) is ‘‘on 

budget,’’ Congress decides on a yearly basis the amount that will be authorized and 

appropriated to administer SSA programs. Such appropriations are often insufficient to provide adequate staffing since funds for SSA’s LAE are a part of the overall Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations. Programs such as medical research, 

healthcare and ‘‘No Child Left Behind’’ state grants are often viewed as more politically popular than SSA’s LAE. Often SSA is left with insufficient staff and limited 

overtime making it next to impossible to adequately service the public. Such shortages adversely affect disability processing time and cause severe integrity problems. 

AFGE does not believe the American public deserves poor service from SSA. Some 

claimants waiting for a disability hearings decision lose their homes, declare bankruptcy, and some die before a decision is made on their disability claims appeal. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

110 

5GAO Report 04–924,’’SSA Should Strengthen Its Efforts To Detect and Prevent Overpayments’’ 

Their families suffer tremendous financial hardships; some lose everything during 

the prolonged wait for a decision. The public deserves efficient, expeditious service. 

Currently, SSA’s LAE is less than 2% of total estimated outlays. Historically, SSA’s 

LAE has never exceeded 2% of expenditures. 

Removing SSA’s LAE from discretionary spending caps will allow Congress to assess SSA’s administrative requirements without regard to the competing budgetary 

demands of the Departments of Labor, HHS and Education agencies. 

In an ‘‘off budget’’ environment Congress would continue to maintain spending authority but would be unencumbered by artificial caps and budgetary scoring rules. 

However, AFGE strongly recommends continued Congressional authorization, appropriations and oversight of SSA’s LAE. 

Congress should continue to appropriate SSA administrative expenses to ensure 

integrity and efficiency. Legislation should require SSA’s Commissioner to document 

(in performance reports mandated under the Government Performance and Results 

Act) how funds have been and will be used to effectively carry out the mission of 

the agency, to meet expected levels of performance, to achieve modern customer-responsive service, and to protect program integrity. Most importantly, GAO must annually inform Congress regarding SSA’s progress in achieving stated goals. Congress should also mandate that SSA’s Commissioner submit the proposed budget directly to Congress as is now only optional in the independent agency legislation 

(P.L. 103–296, § 101.) This requirement to submit the SSA budget directly to Congress is also contain in H.R. 5110 sponsored by Congressman Higgins of New York 

and endorsed by AFGE. 

AFGE Recommendations— 

• 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. 

Integrity Workloads 

SSA integrity work (i.e., continuous disability reviews (CDRs) and SSI redeterminations) has been significantly diminished due to budget cuts. Former Commissioner Barnhart suspended all SSI Redeterminations and Medical Continuing Disability Reviews (CDRs) during particularly tight budget periods. In FY 2008, SSA 

Commissioner Michael Astrue has significantly reduced these workloads. SSA 

projects completing 235,000 medical CDRs in FY 08 instead of the scheduled 

700,000. Instead of processing 2 million SSI redeterminations scheduled in FY 08, 

the Agency will only complete 1.2 million. These reviews return $10 for every dollar 

invested in CDRs and $7 for every dollar invested in Redeterminations. Without 

these reviews, billions of dollars of incorrect payments result. SSA will never collect some of the overpayments caused by insufficient integrity reviews. 

Furthermore, the collapse of integrity oversight of SSA’s programs compromises 

the solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. According to GAO’s 2004 report on 

overpayments related to SSA programs, overpayment detections increased from 

about $1.9 billion to nearly $3 billion between fiscal years 1999 and 2003 5 In 2005, 

SSA improperly paid $6.3 billion. OPM now reports that of eight Federal programs, 

including SSA’s Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance and SSI programs, 

SSA accounted for more than 89 percent of the government’s improper payments in 

FY 2006. 

AFGE supports fully funding Continuing Disability Review and SSI Redetermination workloads. AFGE does not support artificial spending limits for such workloads. 

Congress should authorize the resources necessary so that SSA can produce CDR 

and Redeterminations levels as envisioned in the Social Security Administration’s 

strategic plan. 

AFGE Recommendations— 

• Congress should authorize the resources necessary so that SSA can produce 

CDR and Redetermination results as envisioned in the SSA strategic plan. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

111 

Internet Claims, Internet Social Security Benefits Application and Ready 

Retirement 

The Social Security Administration has offered the public access to Internet services for almost a decade but with mixed results. On the positive side, ‘‘service’’ can 

be provided without contacting an SSA facility. The negative affects are not so obvious or made public by the Agency. Unfortunately, little has been done to correct 

these problems. 

They include: 

• Programming flaws that do not correctly identify the ‘‘protected filing date.’’ 

• Identity and privacy concerns 

• Incorrect payments 

• High volume of errors, resulting in re-contacts. 

• Creation of a new backlog at Social Security 

• No review process of the public’s accuracy in completing applications. 

Additionally, SSA has implemented new policy changes in an effort to eliminate 

employee review of claims filed through the Internet altogether. These changes include: 

• Lag earnings will no longer be routinely developed. 

• No longer requiring proof of citizenship for age 60 or over 

• No longer requiring proof of age for age 60 or over 

• No longer assisting the claimant in determining the most advantageous month 

of entitlement. 

SSA argues that savings in work years that they project will be achieved through 

the relaxation of evidentiary standards and the elimination of advice and assistance 

to claimants will allow the Agency to concentrate on elimination of backlogs and improve Agency service. Unfortunately, AFGE asserts that such changes are dangerous and will result in enabling fraud, causing incorrect payments, and result in 

claimants making decisions that are not in their best interests. Therefore, the Union 

and the employees of SSA strongly disagree with the Agency’s recent policy decisions. 

No Development of Lag Earnings—Effective 1/23/2008 

Lag earnings are wages earned but not yet posted to the earnings record. In the 

past, the claims representative determines if the prior year’s earnings have been 

posted to the applicant’s earnings record. If not, they are manually added to determine an accurate and full benefit estimate. If the applicant has his/her W–2 form 

available, the wages can be easily added to the benefit computation at the initial 

interview. Lag wages tend to increase the benefit amount for most wage earners. 

Eventually SSA conducts a re-computation of the benefits when the IRS verifies the 

earnings and pays the beneficiary(s) accordingly if lag wages are not developed for 

the initial claim. Unfortunately, this process could take several months. The process 

sometimes takes years if particular conversion problems occur. Eliminating lag wage 

development insures that most claimants will be paid incorrectly until the benefit 

amount is recomputed after receiving IRS data. 

No Development of Proof of Age and Citizenship—Effective 2/11/2008 

Historically, SSA requires claimants to submit evidence to establish their rights 

to benefits. One of the most important parts of the claims process is the gathering, 

recording and evaluation of this evidence. 

Why proof of age? To be entitled to reduced retirement benefits, a claimant must 

be fully insured and have attained age 62. Thus, the exact date of birth is critical 

to a claimant’s eligibility for benefits. The year of birth also affects the benefit calculation. Retirement benefits at age 62 are reduced for every month prior to the full 

retirement age. Therefore establishing a correct date of birth is necessary to establish correct payment. 

Why proof of citizenship? In 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA or Public Law 104–193) was signed into 

law. Section 401(a) of the Personal Responsibility Act places restrictions on the payment of benefits to aliens in the U.S. under Title II of the Social Security Act. An 

alien eligible for benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act can be paid when 

he/she is ‘‘lawfully present in the United States as determined by the Attorney General.’’ The Attorney General defined the phrase ‘‘lawfully present in the United 

States’’ for purposes of paying Title II benefits in regulations published on September 6, 1996 by the Department of Homeland Security (previously known as the 

Immigration and Naturalization Service). 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

112 

6Soc. Sec. Act as Amended in 1996, Sec. 202(y); P.L. 104–193; P.L. 104–208; P.L.105–33 8 

CFR 103.12. 

In February 2008, SSA made major policy changes that no longer require proof 

of age or citizenship for those filing for benefits that are over age 60 and make an 

allegation of date and place of birth that agreed with their Social Security number 

record, known internally as a ‘‘numident’’ record. Thus, if an individual lied about 

their date and place of birth in order to get a Social Security number for a job and 

the person uses the same erroneous information at the time of benefit application, 

a match will exit and neither proof of age or citizenship will be requested by SSA. 

This change was instituted in February, 2008 without any regulatory notice. 

AFGE strong believes this is bad policy that will lead to fraud and incorrect payments. 

Until the 1980’s Social Security cards were issued without any form of identification. Much like a library card, one simply completed a short application, submitted 

the application to SSA and the Agency issued a number and a card. Allegations of 

date and place of birth were accepted on face value without evidentiary requirements. For the Baby Boomer generation, the Social Security card was an easy 

record to obtain if someone wanted to change their identity, age or even place of 

birth. The Administration’s reckless decision to accept a person’s allegation, as long 

as it agrees with the allegation on the original application, is inconceivable and unlawful.6 Its purpose is not to insure accuracy or to improve public service. The reason for these evidentiary relaxations is to create the ability for claimants to file 

Internet applications without any review or intervention of an SSA employee. 

Accept Allegation of Month of Entitlement—Effective September 2008 

SSA officials have announced that in September, 2008 SSA will introduce a new 

Internet Social Security Claims Benefit Application (ISBA) which is a simpler retirement application, and which will be the vehicle for the Agency’s ultimate goal of 

automated adjudication requiring no human review or intervention. 

Additionally, SSA will implement a new procedure that will require SSA claims 

specialists to stop providing advice and assistance to the retirement applicant to 

help them decide on the effective month to start their retirement benefits (i.e., 

month of election). 

Determining the correct or most advantageous month of entitlement (MOE) for an 

applicant is one of the most complicated and error prone issues in processing a retirement claim. Many factors must be considered when determining a MOE such as 

current work history, self employment, Totalization rules, and past disability history. 

In preparation for this hearing, AFGE has reviewed Sample RSI Quality Feedback Reports which capture errors taken form Regional Office of Quality Assurance 

reviews of retirement claims. These sample cases clearly exhibit various actions on 

the part of SSA resulting in incorrect payment amounts to the beneficiary. The following were some of the most common errors listed in these reports—— 

• Incorrect Date of Entitlement Causes Underpayment 

• Incorrect Month of Election Given Causes Underpayment and Overpayment 

• Failure to Discuss Reduced Rate of Entitlement Date Causes Underpayment 

• Incorrect Determination on Entitlement Date Causes Underpayment 

• Failure to Determine Government Pension Offset Applies Causes Overpayment 

• Failure to Include Military Service Credits Resulting in an Underpayment 

• Incorrect Posting of Military Service Credits Resulting in an Overpayment 

• Incorrect Processing of Military Service Credits Causes Underpayment 

• Failure to Identify Military Service Issue Results in an Underpayment 

• Failure to Use 2001 Lag Wages Results in an Underpayment 

• Failure to Take Action on Wage Gap After 1977 Causes Underpayment 

• Failure to Discuss Earnings Record Thoroughly results in Underpayment 

An applicant’s allegations will go unchecked unless all Internet claims are required to be reviewed by a trained SSA Claims Representative. SSA employees and 

AFGE are shocked and appalled that such changes will go forward despite the vast 

number of claims that currently require correction. 

Internet Proficiency 

SSA employees assist people who are elderly, disabled, uneducated, poor and 

homeless. Many applicants struggle just to complete simple forms. SSA’s applications were created to obtain information which will meet all requirements of the law 

including identifying potential individuals who may be eligible for benefits on a 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

113 

wage earner’s record. As a result, SSA has invested millions of dollars to train its 

Claims Representatives (CR). However, the Agency now intends to create an Internet application which will not be reviewed by an SSA employee. This is prescription 

for disaster. 

SSA asserts that 2.5 million electronic transactions were completed by 

the public in FY 07. However, a substantial number of these electronic transactions were problematic to the degree that SSA employees were required to recontact the transactor. SSA employees are very concerned about the direction of the 

Agency strategy toward unreviewed Internet transactions because few Internet applications are completed accurately and, consequently, require recontact by SSA employees. A Claims Representative from the Seattle region who has processed Internet claims for more than a year recently told AFGE: ‘‘I can only think of 2 [disability 

claims] which were done right. One was completed by a disabled registered nurse, 

and the other was completed by a physician who had cancer.’’ AFGE recently surveyed SSA employees who process Internet claims. Seventy percent of the employees 

who responded stated that 90–100% of the claims they reviewed required some kind 

of re-contact. Such re-contacts included the need to develop new applications for 

spouses and children, obtaining correct dates of onset of disabilities, development 

of the correct month of entitlements for retirement claims, obtaining medical information, development of incorrect wage information, obtaining complete and accurate 

work histories, identifying government pensions and correct military service information. Employees reported that Internet claims take an average of 2 re-contacts 

to secure the necessary information to complete the claim. Employees also report 

that each re-contact takes an average of 30 minutes, which they feel is not reflected 

in Agency statistics. In many cases, it takes weeks and even months to get in 

touch with the applicant, who thought the claim was completed and, therefore, had 

no reason to communicate with SSA. Employees strongly believe that if they had 

assisted the claimants either face to face in the office or by telephone that the 

claims would have been done correctly—without the need for any re-contacts. 

Unfortunately, this cannot be verified by Agency statistics. SSA does not and 

will not perform audits on the Internet claims prior to employee review and correction. Instead, the claim is reviewed after an SSA employee makes the necessary corrections. This creates the illusion that the claims were completed correctly by the 

public. Thus, SSA has no data to indicate that a decision to remove Internet claims 

review will be beneficial to the public. 

Loss of Protected Filing 

An application filing date protects a person’s claim for benefits. This date is often 

used to establish eligibility and to determine when benefits can begin. In accordance 

with 20 CFR.630, 408.330 and 416.330, SSA must use a written statement (such as 

a letter) indicating the applicant’s intent to file for benefits for themselves or another person. This is referred to as a protective filing, which can also serve as an 

application date. The law is clear that an expression of intent to file for benefits 

need not be on a specific form or any particular format. Therefore, the same rules 

apply to oral requests. 

Because potential payments are involved, SSA is required to send letters to people 

who fail to keep appointments and notify them that their benefits will be protected 

for up to six (6) months. If SSA does not send this letter, the protective filing date 

is left open and a person could be paid years of retroactive benefits if the matter 

is not dealt with promptly. 

However, SSA has decided NOT to apply this law to Internet claims. Under the 

current system, when someone initiates an application on SSA’s Internet site but 

cannot complete it, SSA issues a confirmation number to the individual to re-access 

the application but the Agency does not consider the unsuccessful attempt to file 

evidence of a desire to file which would protect the date of filing. When, and if, a 

person completes the application and ‘‘submits’’ it to SSA, that is considered the 

date of filing. If a month or more pass, the claimant could have lost benefits. Listings and/or access to partially completed internet claims are not available to field 

office employees for follow-up purposes. AFGE believes this failure to protect the applicant’s intent to file a claim is a violation of law. SSA has stated the new Internet application due to be released in September 2008 should establish a protective 

filing. However, there has been no effort to correct the current situation which due 

to the complexity of the Internet claims process is common and results in loss of 

benefits for some applicants. 

Identity and Privacy Concerns 

SSA employees are unable to identify and verify the person who filed the application for benefits on-line. Employees have become aware of spouses, children, grandmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

114 

children, and unauthorized third parties (such as employees of the applicant) filing 

Internet claims. This leaves the system vulnerable to fraud, as claims could be easily filed with stolen identities. Recent SSA internal reports indicate that applicants 

continue to struggle to provide accurate, basic information, such as ‘‘name’’ information. In SSA’s April 11, 2008 client vs. internet discrepancy report, more than 83% 

of the applications received had discrepancies in this area. To a trained Claims Specialist, this would be a red flag and suggest that the applicant may not be the number holder, but rather someone else filing on his/her behalf. Without verifying that 

the number holder actually filed or authorized the claim, the SSN holder’s privacy 

could be compromised if claims are allowed to be processed through the Internet 

without employee review. 

Internet Claims Processing and Backlog Potential 

Every office handles these cases differently. In some places, the Claims Representative can schedule an appointment to thoroughly review the application, remind the 

applicant of the documents that are needed, and check for any possible claims leads. 

Most offices force their employees to fit these claims into hours when the office is 

closed to the public or during overtime. Employees have not noticed any changes 

in the volume of teleclaims and in office claims due to the accelerated utilization 

of Internet claims by the public. Claims workload in general has increased as a result of the 1946 initial baby boom generation reaching retirement age in 2008. Thus, 

Internet claims review and recontact workload is an add on that requires finding 

time to process. 

Payment errors will increase if claimants are allowed to file Internet claims without review. Claimants are not familiar with the Windfall Elimination Provision 

(WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) provisions of the Social Security 

Act and the impact of these laws on their benefits. 

Applicants are confused when electing their Month of Entitlement (MOE). They 

generally do not understand how the annual earnings test works. Often, they will 

take advice from a friend or neighbor whose experience is very different from their 

own. The result: a loss in benefits (including Medicare at age 65). SSA employees 

who review Internet claims identify the choice of the month of election as the most 

frequent error. Currently, if upon review a disadvantageous month of election is 

found, the SSA reviewer must recontact the claimant and explain why the choice 

that they made appears disadvantageous. If the claimant insists on picking a disadvantageous month to start their benefits, employees must document the file that an 

explanation was given yet the claimant chose the disadvantageous start date anyway. The Agency is planning to eliminate this assistance and advice step completely 

concurrent with the introduction of the ISBA in September. 

Other Problems with Incorrectly Completed Claims 

Claims submitted by spouses, family members or other third parties are often 

lacking information about prior marriages and/or children from prior marriages and/ 

or relationships. Many times the person completing the forms simply does not know 

the relationship history of the applicant. By law, SSA considers the names of former 

spouses and/or children as leads for benefits. Without further investigation by a 

trained Claims Representative, these potential leads would be missed and family 

members would not be paid the benefits they are due. 

When an identified third party helps an applicant file for Social Security benefits 

on-line, we are required to obtain an Appointment of Representative (SSA–1696) 

form, signed and submitted to SSA. We also need Consent for Release of Information (SSA–3288) form signed and submitted before we can release any information 

to someone other than the claimant. An Internet claim does not provide this form. 

In spite of the numerous problems with Internet claims raised by the Union, Commissioner Astrue has directed all SSA employees to pass this message along to the 

public: use the internet rather than call the 800-number or visit an office. In some 

parts of the country, field office employees and teleservice representatives (800-number agents) have been directed to tell each and every person contacting Social Security: ‘‘the next time you have a problem, use our on-line service.’’ This approach has 

not been well received and is perceived by the public as rude. Many SSA employees 

have been documented for poor performance for not directing the public to the 

Internet. 

This emphasis on Internet service deviates from the pledge that SSA has made 

to the American public which is reiterated every year when they are sent their earnings statements from SSA. This pledge is that the public determines which method 

they will utilize to interact with SSA. It can be in person, by phone, by mail or 

through the Internet. The Agency now is asking employees to sell the public on 

Internet claims even though employees realize that phone and/or face to face service 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

115 

is more likely to result in an accurate and complete application. Some Agency letters to the public now only provide the Internet option as the exclusive method for 

contacting the Agency. 

AFGE Recommendations— 

Require SSA Commissioner Astrue to: 

• Restore lag wage development in claims • Restore proof of age development using the rules in effect before the 02/08 

change • Restore proof of citizenship development using the rules in effect before the 02/ 

08 change • Maintain a system of employee review of all Internet claims • Pilot the new Internet Social Security Benefit Application before Agency wide 

implementation. • Provide Congress with the pilot results which will include an evaluation of 

claims accuracy prior to SSA employee review prior to implementation • Maintain employee review of all Internet applications until it can be shown that 

the accuracy level of Internet claims matches or exceeds the accuracy level of 

telephone and in person claims. • Request Authorizing Committees to hold hearings on the effects of Internet 

claims on SSA workloads and on claimants. • Continue to permit SSA customers to select the methodology for interacting 

with SSA that they prefer. 

3rd Party Claims 

In another effort to determine how to do the Agency’s business with inadequate 

resources, the Agency has been developing increasingly friendly relationships with 

3rd parties that want to take over portions of SSA work. The plans for the ISBA 

application would allow 3rd parties to file claims and protect filing dates on behalf 

of the claimant. Initially, claimants will be required to sign an authorization document to enable 3rd parties to act on their behalf. However, SSA’s goal is to eliminate that requirement. In fact, SSA intends to solicit 3rd parties to engage in bulk 

filing of electronic claims for multiple claimants. This will enable for profit companies to offer a filing service for claimants in return for a fee. Of course, currently 

filing applications through the Agency either via the teleservice system, face to face 

in an office or through he Internet is free. (The service was already paid for through 

taxes.) AFGE’s concern is that expanding 3rd party claims opportunities to profit 

making companies is the first step to potentially contracting out core inherently governmental Agency functions. Allowing 3rd parties to file claims on behalf of individuals through the Internet without SSA review would enable these 3rd parties to actually authorize payment to their clients. This is a dangerous step towards the privatization of the Agency. 

SSA employees complain frequently about the low quality of the work product of 

many current 3rd party claims organizations. Typically states and institutions contract with 3rd parties who file disability claims with Social Security to, hopefully, 

remove such individuals from state benefit roles or to defray an institution’s costs 

of care. The work product is frequently poor and requires recontacts for missing information or to correct erroneous information. Allowing an expansion of this effort 

to use 3rd parties to other types of applications without strict regulatory requirements will only result in problems. 

Currently attorneys and other 3rd parties are regulated with respect to the fees 

that they can charge for representation of claimants in hearings before ALJs. No 

rules exist for representation fees in initial claims. There are currently no regulatory standards regarding competency and fees for 3rd parties at the initial claim 

level. 

AFGE Recommendations— 

• Congress should enact legislation limiting contracting out in SSA due to the inherently governmental work of much of the Agency’s business. 

• Congress should pass legislation proscribing maximum fees for 3rd parties in 

initial claims. 

• Congress should pass legislation requiring 3rd parties to register with SSA and 

requiring them to maintain minimal competency standards. 

• Congress should pass legislation enabling SSA to revoke 3rd parties registration 

privileges upon discovery of incompetence, fraud, price gauging, etc. 

• SSA should be empowered to sanction 3rd parties for inappropriate conduct. 

• 3rd parties should not be permitted to register if they have a conflict of interest 

(e.g., relationships with SSA employees). 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

116 

• 3rd party fee structures and complaints against 3rd parties and 3rd party registration information should be fully disclosed to claimants. • Access to claimants information protected by the Privacy Act should be severely 

limited to 3rd parties • Claimants should be required to sign authorizations prior to SSA providing any 

claimant data to 3rd parties. • SSA should be required to evaluate 3rd party performance through accuracy reviews. Such reviews should be released to the public. 

Office Closures 

Face-to-face interviews in Social Security offices increased by nearly a million visitors from 2006 to 2007. Despite that increase, the Administration has decided to accelerate the closure Social Security offices across the country. 

SSA’s criteria for office closure consideration are unknown to the union. Last October Commissioner Michael J Astrue informed AFGE that smaller offices in urban 

areas will be reviewed as office leases approach expiration. However, other high 

level Agency officials have informed their employees and union officials that SSA 

will look at all offices of 15 employees or less. When I asked Linda McMahon, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, in October 2007 about the Agency’s office closing 

strategy, she responded that the Agency could close between 50 and 200 offices. 

However, in February 2008, Commissioner Astrue publicly denied this after 

AFGE alerted Congress to the Agency office closing initiative. Since the Commissioner’s public denial of an office closing plan, AFGE has been notified by SSA that 

additional offices will be closed in the future. Additionally, AFGE records indicate 

that in 2007 SSA closed a record number of offices. In 2007, the Administration 

closed 17 offices including: 

• Burbank, CA 

• Industry Hills, CA 

• San Fransisco-Parkside, CA 

• SF Western Addition, CA 

• San Pedro, CA 

• Hallandale, FL 

• Miami-Central, FL 

• St Louis NW, MO 

• Warrensburg, MO 

• Auburn, NY 

• Bay Ridge, NY 

• N Charleston, WV 

• Nacogdoches, TX 

• Cheektowaga, NY 

• Bronx River, NY 

• Carbondale, PA 

• Brentwood, PA 

In 2008 SSA closed the Oskaloosa, IA office and recently announced its plans to 

close the Clinton, IA office effective June 1, 2008. SSA has also notified affected employees of its intention to close the St. Paul MN and the Portland OR Teleservice 

Centers in 2009. 

In recent media publications SSA stated that they agreed to keep the Bristol, CN 

office open due to an increase in the FY08 budget. This office was scheduled to close 

in 2007, but will remain open on a year to year basis, depending on budget constraints. Employees in the Clinton, IA office were also told that the Clinton office 

was being closed for budgetary reasons. The press was informed that the Agency 

would save $632,000 over a 5 year period by closing the Clinton office. No 

verification was provided for the $10,500/mo rent and utility costs for the 3 person 

office. 

AFGE is very disturbed by these statements. The Commissioner has neither notified Congress nor the union of the level of appropriation required to maintain the 

current field office structure. If these closures are due to budgetary shortfalls, then 

why hasn’t this been brought to the attention of Congress? Why hasn’t the Commissioner notified the Authorizing and/or Appropriating Committee? 

In Fiscal Year 2008 Social Security will be at its lowest staffing level since 1972. 

SSA continues to lose personnel through retirement and attrition and the announced FY 07 replacement ratio will result in an additional 1012 FTE reduction. 

The Bush Administration and SSA Commissioner Astrue are reluctant to ask Congress for more staff but that is the only answer to this crisis. Yet they are willing 

to reduce services to the public. AFGE strongly believes that SSA should be providing help through community-based field offices that offer full services. This can 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

117 

not be accomplished through further reductions of service to claimants and beneficiaries. 

SSA pays benefits to about 50 million people every month. Every year, SSA employees handle more than 6 million new claims for Retirement, Disability, and Survivors benefits. SSA also process 18 million requests for Social Security cards and 

posts 265 million annual earnings items for covered workers. The Agency expects 

significant increases in the Continuing Disability Review (CDR) workloads, ‘‘no 

match’’ cases required by the Department of Homeland Security and the e-verify 

system. Under legislation proposed by Congressman Schuler and another bill by 

Congressman Sam Johnson, e-verify would be mandatory and result in 3.6 million 

additional interviews in the first year after enactment. Closing offices puts a significant burden on these 3.6 million workers to correct their SSA records so that they 

can work. These workloads will further challenge employees. All this is accomplished at less than 2% administrative costs, while private insurance companies 

have administrative costs of between 12–16%. How does closing the field office 

in your district improve this record of service? 

It has become very clear to the employees of SSA and AFGE that the only effective method to prevent unnecessary office closures is to request legislation to provide for Congressional oversight on decisions impacting Social Security offices. On 

January 24, 2008, Representative Brian Higgins (D/NY) introduced the Social Security Customer Service Improvement Act, H.R. 5110. This legislation provides procedures that SSA’s Commissioner must follow before closing an office. Those procedures include: 

• Providing a detailed report to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security and the Senate Finance Committee outlining and justifying the 

process for selecting field offices to be closed or otherwise have limited access. 

Such report shall include—— 

• an analysis of the criteria used for selecting field offices for closure or limited 

access; • the Commissioner’s analysis and consideration must include factors relating 

to transportation and communication burdens faced by seniors and the disabled; • a cost-benefit analysis for each field office closure that takes into account: 

• the anticipated savings as a result of the closure; • the anticipated burdens, including communication and transportation burdens, placed on elderly and disabled citizens; and • the anticipated costs associated with replacing the services lost by the closure. 

• The Commissioner must wait 6 months after the submission of the report to 

Congress to close or limit access to a Social Security field office. 

AFGE urges each Member of this Committee to support and co-sponsor this very 

important legislation to ensure that customer service is at a level that citizens deserve. 

Until such legislation is passed by Congress, AFGE Recommends— 

• Congress passes legislation enacting a moratorium on all office closures. 

Social Security Card Centers 

In the last few years, Social Security has opened 6 Card Centers in New York 

City, Phoenix, Las Vegas and Orlando. The Commissioner informed the union that 

he intends to open at least 20 more such card centers. Existing personnel was used 

to staff these new offices. This card center concept is a bad idea. In fact, Social Security Card Centers are an example of how to provide really bad public 

service! 

During Fiscal Year 2007, SSA processed 17.6 million Social Security Number 

(SSN) applications for new or replacement Social Security cards. Most of them were 

processed in the 1260 field offices across the country. Virtually all of SSA’s field office staff has been trained to process SSN applications. This would include clericals, 

Service Representatives, Claims Representatives, Technical Experts and management. 

Once card centers are opened, the public in a broad geographic area is required 

to do all their SSA card business in the card center. Local full service offices will 

not do SSN card work. This requires the public to travel in some cases long distances to get their SSA card business done. The Las Vegas card center services 5 

county jurisdiction. Outlying cities are 200 miles from the card center. If a person 

has both SSA card business and other business with SSA, they are forced to visit 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

118 

2 offices since card centers do no other work. Thus, the Agency has created a system 

insuring lengthy commutes for many customers and two stop shopping for others. 

The Las Vegas card center experienced huge workloads earlier this year. In January customers frequently started lining up at 6 AM at the card center door that 

didn’t open till 9 AM. At the end of the day when the office closed at 4 PM, the 

175 capacity waiting room was full and lines were out the door. Often the last customer was serviced after 7 PM. SSA clients are inconvenienced, forced to wait hours 

for service and employees were faced with mandatory overtime to service all the 

customers. Universal e-verify or a resumption of the No Match program will only 

exacerbate this situation. 

SSA has always required its offices to be full service facilities. There are no offices 

exclusively devoted to disability or retirement claims. All field offices process whatever business that the public has with SSA. The card centers are the 1st deviations 

from this policy. They were established for security purposes. It was thought that 

employees who only did SS card work would have unique expertise. However, every 

SSA office outside of the card center jurisdictions does a high volume of SSA card 

work. Employees in field offices have as much expertise as card center employees 

in doing this work. The amount of inconvenience that is created with card centers 

is unnecessary. AFGE recommends that SSA drop the concept of card centers. 

SSA is unwilling to change this policy. Therefore, AFGE believes Members of Congress should: 

• Require SSA Field offices to become full service facilities. 

• Request Commissioner Astrue to reverse SSA’s policy of forcing the public to 

leave a field office and commute to a Social Security Card Center when they 

either went to the wrong office or had multiple business with the Agency. 

• Request Commissioner Astrue to suspend all plans to open additional Social Security Card Centers until this policy is reversed. 

• Request the authorizing Committees to hold hearings on policies and problems 

related to Social Security Card Centers. 

• Request Appropriation Subcommittees on Labor, HHS and Education to include 

language that would prevent SSA from using appropriated dollars to fund Social Security Card Centers. 

Conclusion 

The Social Security system’s Disability programs are a crucial component of the 

social safety net, and AFGE’s Social Security employees take great pride in providing service to disability beneficiaries. Employees are sincerely concerned about 

the wellbeing of disability beneficiaries, and consider their role as helping those who 

are unfortunate enough to have experienced a disability to obtain the Social Security benefits they have earned. 

The Social Security Administration has a long and proud tradition of working constructively with its unionized workforce to make the Social Security system efficient, 

fair and ‘‘customer-friendly.’’ That is why Social Security remains so popular and 

successful. It is unfortunate; however, that I must report that the years of doing 

more with less has had a severe toll on the employee morale at SSA. In a recent 

AFGE survey of SSA workers, 45% reported that they are dissatisfied or extremely 

dissatisfied with their work experience at SSA. Survey responses would indicate 

that employee’s greatest frustrations are staff shortages and a lack of time to process pending cases due to the pressure of constant interviewing. Overwhelmingly, 

employees report that they do not have enough time to devote to a quality work 

product, which includes accuracy, complete and proper explanations of rights and 

responsibilities to clients, investigation of any and all inaccuracies, etc—Backlogs 

are growing at tremendous rates. 

I urge the Committee to do whatever is necessary to insure that SSA receives sufficient appropriations to do the work that Congress demands from the Agency. 

AFGE is committed to serve, as we always have, as the employees’ advocate AND 

a watchdog for clients, taxpayers, and their elected representatives. 

This concludes my statement. I will be happy to answer any questions that Members of the Committee may have. 

f 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you for your testimony. We will now 

hear from one of those administrative law judges we have been 

hearing about. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

119 

Frederick Waitsman is an administrative law judge from Social 

Security Division of the Federal Bar Association in Atlanta, Georgia. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE FREDERICK WAITSMAN, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, AND VICE CHAIR, SOCIAL SECURITY SECTION OF THE 

FEDERAL BAR ASSOCIATION, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. Thank you Congressman McDermott and 

thank you Ranking Member McCrery and Members of the Committee. Thank you for convening this hearing on an issue of vital 

importance to millions of Americans. 

I am pleased to be here on behalf of the Social Security section 

of the Federal Bar Association. Although I am an administrative 

law judge, I am not here in that capacity and my remarks are solely those of the Social Security Section of the Federal Bar. You 

should know the Federal Bar represents a broad array of stakeholders working at all levels of the disability adjudication process. 

The primary concern of the Federal Bar is the integrity, independence, fairness, and effectiveness of the disability hearing process. The Commissioner is faced with a daunting task and limited 

resources. He has developed a number of initiatives to reduce the 

backlog and processing times. We have seen some of these initiatives result in progress and congratulate him on these successes. 

However, we believe even more can be accomplished with fiscal 

year 2009 funding in excess of the President’s request. Therefore 

we have made the following six recommendations. 

One, SSA should continue to hire administrative law judges and 

fully staff the hearing operations. We have already talked quite a 

bit today about that needed staffing ratio. It has been said that hiring 175 judges without adequate staffing is like buying 125 trucks 

with gas for only 25. I would just caution that when we talk about 

these various reports that show the staffing ratio, make sure you 

know exactly what goes into them. The Atlanta area has two hearing offices, and when Medicare Part D subsidy went into effect, 10 

of the decision writers were detailed for a year and half, physically 

moved, did Medicare work, yet they were counted as part of that 

staffing ratio. So, the intent of the 4.5 staffing ratio is workers actually at the work site conducting Social Security disability work. 

Two, Social Security should continue to fully implement the electronic disability process. SSA is strongly committed to a paperless 

file called eDIB that is a work in progress and needs to be fully 

funded to be successfully implemented. Improvements can be made 

to ensure the system can support the growing workload and not 

risk a slowdown or even a crash of the system with hundreds of 

thousands of claims. 

Third, SSA needs to fund capital expenditures to add new hearing offices and permanent remote sites. Both the current and the 

prior Commissioner approved several new hearing offices based 

upon the needs, but then, as the Commissioner said today, there 

were not enough funds available to build those facilities. That is 

one area that I think we need the Congressional help for additional 

appropriations so we can have facilities where the claimants and 

the cases are. I think we are truly in a crisis situation, and I would 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

120 

refer back to what we did when we faced Hurricane Katrina and 

the damage that did. I am more familiar of Mississippi, which was 

part our responsibility when I was in the management of the Atlanta eight state region. We lost an office to the hurricane, and so 

we had judges that volunteered to come in from all over the country and help out, and so we had, on short notice we were able to 

get temporary space, have it wired for video. The whole area didn’t 

have hotel space, which was destroyed or occupied by FEMA workers, contractors, and everybody else, so we couldn’t get hotels to 

send people, but we could do the video hearings, and so that area 

of southern Mississippi was not disadvantaged or as badly disadvantaged from lack of services. So, while it takes a long time to 

maybe build a full scale hearing office, more emergent efforts could 

be made. 

Fourth, Social Security should test initiatives before full implementation and not count on their success to justify reduced staffing. The Government Accountability Office has issued a number of 

reports highlighting weaknesses at Social Security caused by implementation of newer initiatives without sufficient preliminary 

testing. We believe that Social Security should hire temporary employees if it contends that we don’t need as many employees because we are going to have some kind of new initiative that may 

reduce it somewhere in the future. There are plenty of retired employees and government programs for bringing back fully trained 

employees to work on a temporary basis. 

Fifth, Social Security should realign the workforce and staffing 

at the hearing level by transferring cases. We have talked about 

that a lot today, but the disparity across the country is striking. 

Sixth, the correct decision should be made as early as possible 

in the claim review process to reduce processing time, expense, and 

hardship to the claimant. 

I would point out two initiatives by the Commissioner that really 

proves the point that many of these claims shouldn’t make it to the 

Administrative Law Judge stage, that it should have been approved at an earlier stage. These two processes sound the same, 

but actually involve totally different people. 

In the Atlanta region, or Atlanta’s two offices, we have DDS, 

which is the state agency employees reviewing our 900 day old 

cases if the judge is not going to get to those in short order. They 

are reviewing the same evidence we have. They may update the 

evidence, but they don’t have any authority to pick a later onset 

date so they are fully favorable. They are paying a high percentage 

of these cases without the necessity of a hearing, and these are the 

same employees or the same state agency which had denied it previously. 

Then we have DQB, the division of quality control which monitors the state agencies for their quality, and they have an initiative where they are coming in and also reviewing a different set of 

900 day old cases, and once again, approving a large number of 

cases without any amendment to the onset date. 

So, Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. The Social Security section of the Federal 

Bar looks forward to working with you and the Social Security Administration in improving the disability process. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

121 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Frederick Waitsman follows:] 

Prepared Statement of The Honorable Frederick Waitsman, 

Administrative Law Judge, Social Security Administration, and 

Vice Chair, Social Security Section of the Federal Bar 

Association, Atlanta, Georgia 

Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery and Members of the Committee: 

I am Rick Waitsman, Vice Chair of the Social Security Section of the Federal Bar 

Association. I am an Administrative Law Judge in the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review of the Social Security Administration in its Atlanta North office. 

As an Administrative Law Judge at SSA for the past fourteen years, I have heard 

and decided well over 8,000 appeals. I also have served in the management positions of Assistant Regional Chief Administrative Law Judge for Region IV–Atlanta 

and Administrative Law Judge in Charge of the Medicare Division. I have served 

in three hearing offices. 

I am very pleased to be here today representing the Social Security Section of the 

Federal Bar Association (FBA). My remarks today are exclusively those of the Social 

Security Section of the Federal Bar Association, and do not necessarily represent 

the views of the FBA as a whole. Moreover, my remarks are not intended to, nor 

do they necessarily reflect, the views of the Social Security Administration. 

Thank you for convening this hearing on a matter of critical importance to the 

Federal government’s delivery of effective services to the American people. As you 

know, the Federal Bar Association is the foremost professional association for attorneys engaged in the practice of law before Federal administrative agencies and the 

Federal courts. Sixteen thousand members of the legal profession belong to the Federal Bar Association. They are affiliated with over 85 FBA chapters in many of your 

districts. There are also more than a dozen sections organized by substantive areas 

of practice, such as the Social Security Section. 

Unlike other organizations associated with the Social Security disability practice 

that tend to represent the narrow interests of one specific group, the Federal Bar 

Association’s Social Security Section embraces all attorneys involved in Social Security disability adjudication. Our members include: 

• Attorney Representatives of claimants 

• Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) 

• Administrative Judges at the Appeals Council 

• Staff Attorneys at the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

• Attorneys at the Social Security Administration’s Office of General Counsel 

• U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

• U.S. Magistrate Judges, District Court Judges and Circuit Court Judges 

The common focus of the FBA’s Social Security Section is the effectiveness of the 

adjudicatory process primarily with hearings in the Office of Disability Adjudication 

and Review (ODAR), the appeal process at the Appeals Council, and judicial review 

in the Federal courts. Our highest priority is to assure the integrity, independence, 

fairness, and effectiveness of the Social Security disability hearing process for those 

it serves—both Social Security claimants themselves and all American taxpayers 

who have an interest in assuring that only those who are truly disabled receive benefits. 

We appreciate the concern that was expressed by this Committee and the Social 

Security Subcommittee that resulted in the Commissioner’s withdrawal of proposed 

rules that would have reduced the due process rights of claimants and cut disability 

benefits by two billion dollars. We strongly believe that the disability appeals backlog has not grown out of an excess of due process. While there should be a constant 

quest to improve the disability program, reforms should not arise out of procedural 

roadblocks that cannot be navigated by claimants. 

Furthermore, it is the Section’s collective view that the Social Security disability 

program is under considerable strain. Current delays in the processing of claims are 

unacceptable. The Federal Bar Association previously urged Congress to increase 

funding for fiscal year 2008, and we applaud the Congress for appropriating funds 

in excess of the President’s request. 

We thank the Ways and Means Committee for holding this hearing and for shining the spotlight on this unconscionable problem and the harm endured by hundreds 

of thousands of claimants who continue to wait for years to receive a final agency 

decision on their disability claim. During the painful wait, some appellants have lost 

their homes, others have been deprived of medical care and necessary medication, 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

122 

some have undergone bankruptcy, while others have suffered even the loss of custody of their children, and in perhaps the most tragic of cases, suffered from depression so severe that it has resulted in suicide. Sadly, it is no longer unusual to review 

a disability claim at the hearing level in which the claimant has died from the disabling impairment or taken one’s life from the stress of lack of resources, without 

the benefit of temporary assistance from the Social Security Administration. 

I serve in the Atlanta North hearing office that was profiled in the February 2008 

CBS Evening News Report on the hearing backlog. ALJs and appellant representatives who are members of the FBA’s Social Security Section agree that the CBS report was an accurate depiction of the lives of those who await final agency decisions 

in the Atlanta North office, as well as other offices dealing with long waits. Some 

statistics about my office and its caseload illustrate the crisis at ODAR. The Atlanta 

North office started fiscal year 2003 with 3,104 pending cases and during that year 

disposed of 3,624 cases with an average processing time of 302 days. In that same 

year, we successfully reduced the number of cases pending. However just 4 years 

later, at the start of 2007, our caseload had grown to 10,490 cases. And though we 

disposed of a record number of cases, our pending caseload continued to grow to 

11,922 cases. That’s why our processing time for 2007 jumped from 302 days to 751 

days, despite a record—breaking number of decisions for the office and its ALJs. 

The backlog in fact would have skyrocketed even more had the Atlanta North Office 

not transferred over 1,000 cases to other offices. While productivity issues can take 

their toll, the influx of new cases without additional resources was the foremost 

cause of waits for claimants. During this rapid growth in cases, we were able to dispose of about 2 cases per ALJ per day, but received about 4 cases per ALJ per day. 

When fiscal year 2008 began, the Commissioner of Social Security gave the Atlanta North office a numerical goal for the number of case dispositions relative to 

the size of our ALJ and support staff. The Commissioner’s national goal was to dispose of all cases that had remained pending at ODAR for 900 or more days. Yet 

if we met our numerical goal, we still would not have disposed of enough cases to 

have eliminated our 900 day-old cases because we had more 900 day-old or older 

cases than our disposition goal. The goal did not even take into account claimants 

entitled to expedited case handling, such as Veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, 

terminal illness cases, dire need, on the record requests, and court and Appeals 

Council remands. 

In the starkest and simplest of terms, we do not have the resources locally to handle the cases we are assigned. The Commissioner is providing help by sending in 

visiting ALJs, utilizing their support staff and permanently transferring cases to 

other offices. But these measures by themselves are insufficient. The bottom line is 

that SSA sorely needs a substantial increase in its funding so that meaningful justice can be promptly and fairly delivered to the hundreds of thousands of disability 

claimants who await an answer to their appeals. 

Social Security has an expression, ‘‘Put a Face to the Case.’’ We are not dealing 

with just numbers or files, but real people and real lives. Social Security at all levels 

has a dedicated workforce. It simply doesn’t have enough employees to do the job 

the public expects and deserves. It should be emphasized that the issue is the 

length of time claimants must wait to receive a final agency decision. While the solution involves studying all steps of the process, we should not lose sight of the fact 

that in addition to the hearing backlog, the claimant waits approximately 103 days 

for an initial decision and 242 days for the Appeals Council. Approximately, 40 

states provide a reconsideration step after an initial denial which results in additional delays. In previous testimony, the Social Security Section of the Federal Bar 

Association has urged that reconsideration be eliminated because the few cases that 

are approved do not justify the delay and expense. Notwithstanding that recommendation, additional funding is needed to increase the speed and accuracy of 

all stages of the application and appeal process. 

The Commissioner is faced with a daunting task and limited resources. He has 

developed a number of initiatives to reduce the backlog in offices with longer processing times. We have seen some of these initiatives result in progress and congratulate him on these successes. However, we believe even more can be accomplished with fiscal year 2009 funding in excess of the President’s request. 

Therefore we offer the following six recommendations: 

1. SSA Should Continue to Hire Administrative Law Judges and Fully 

Staff Hearing Operations 

2. SSA Should Continue to Fully Implement the Electronic Disability 

Process (eDIB) 

3. SSA Needs to Fund Capital Expenditures to Add New Hearing Offices 

and Permanent Remote Sites 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

123 

4. SSA Should Test Initiatives Before Full Implemenation and Not Count 

on Their Success to Justify Reduced Staffing 

5. SSA Should Realign the Workforce and Staffing Components of the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review, and 

6. The Correct Decision Should Be Made as Early as Possible in the Claim 

Review Process to Reduce Processing at the Hearing Level 

Now let’s take a look at each of these recommendations: 

1. SSA Should Continue to Hire Administrative Law Judges and Fully Staff 

Hearing Operations 

The Commissioner has announced plans to hire 175 ALJs this fiscal year, with 

offers accepted by 135. The first group will be reporting to training soon. Studies 

have shown that to have an effective hearing operation, it is necessary to have approximately 4.5 staff for each ALJ. The new hiring plan does not apply the 4.5:1 

staffing formula to new ALJs or significantly address the continuing shortage of 

staff in the offices. The current staffing is well below the target and largely negates 

much of the potential productivity of the ALJs. 

While hiring additional ALJs is important, it should be noted that the hiring of 

approximately 135 ALJs is not an absolute increase in ALJs from prior years. It is 

only a down payment on the attrition that has taken place and does not come close 

to matching the phenomenal increase in pending cases. To hire ALJs without appropriate staff, however, is like hiring pilots to solve the problem of an airline not flying on time. The lack of support staff for an airline will still result in delays in 

boarding passengers, refueling, loading and unloading luggage, and necessary maintenance. It is the same with hiring ALJs without adequate staffing. Without adequate staff the cases will not be entered in a timely fashion into the computer system, the written evidence in cases will not be associated and placed in evidence, 

hearings will not be promptly scheduled, medical and school records to be utilized 

as evidence will not be ordered, inquiries from Congress, claimants and their representatives will not receive timely responses, consultative examinations will not be 

ordered, and decisions will not be timely drafted and mailed. 

Experience has shown that the loss of an ALJ in an understaffed hearing office 

does not usually result in a large percentage of his or her case production being lost. 

The support staff can only prepare so many cases to be heard and can draft only 

so many decisions. The other ALJs who were previously underutilized with the existing staff will pick up most, if not all, of the cases the departing ALJ would have 

produced. My office lost two ALJs to retirement during the last year, yet disposed 

of more cases than ever before. It is often said that hiring more ALJs without staff 

is just slicing the pie into more pieces without increasing the size of the pie. 

There is another worrisome concern, owing itself to the attrition of valuable support staff. The Commissioner has offered early retirements to ODAR employees and 

others. In addition, many of the newly hired ALJs were formerly either Hearing Office Directors, who are the highest non-ALJ in the office, or attorneys, who were either group supervisors or senior attorneys. This means that ODAR will be losing 

many of its best and most seasoned support staff. It is critical that these staff positions and others be filled. If SSA only hires ALJs, total productivity will rise only 

marginally, as the total number of cases will just be split more ways. Also there 

will be a loss of productivity as we use ALJs and senior staff to train the new ALJs 

and staff hired or promoted to new responsibilities. 

2. SSA Should Continue to Fully Implement the Electronic Disability Process (eDIB) 

SSA is strongly committed to a paperless file—called eDIB—but it is a work in 

progress and needs to be fully funded to be successfully implemented. Improvements 

need to be made to assure the system can support this growing workload or we risk 

a slowdown or even a crash of the system, which contains several hundred thousand 

electronic files. 

SSA is experimenting with National Hearing Offices in Falls Church and Albuquerque, in which ALJs will hear electronic cases from across the country by video. 

Since the two National Hearing Offices will only hear cases by video and not conduct in-person hearings, we are concerned that claimants will not have a realistic 

choice regarding their entitlement to an in-person hearing. Many of our members 

do not regard video hearings to be sensitive enough to decide close disability cases. 

It is often difficult to decide issues of pain, mental health, or veracity in person. A 

mere video image of a claimant may not promote the accurate resolution of such 

subtleties. For some claimants, appearing before a video camera makes them nervous, confused or otherwise unable to properly present their claims. We believe it 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

124 

may be a Hobson’s choice to have a video hearing now, or an in-person hearing a 

year-and-a-half from now. Video hearings can help reduce the backlog provided the 

claimant always retains the right to an in-person hearing in the not distant future. 

We urge the Commissioner to provide real protection for the right to opt out of a 

video hearing without the punishment of additional significant delays. We caution 

that the amount of resources dedicated to electronic hearings not cause the Administration to lose sight of the claimant who has been waiting years to be heard on 

his paper file. 

3. SSA Needs to Fund Capital Expenditures to Add New Hearing Offices 

and Permanent Remote Sites 

A hearing office is an office where ALJs and staff are permanently assigned and 

hear cases. A permanent remote site is a location that SSA controls through ownership or lease where ALJs hold hearings, but no ALJs or staff are assigned. In the 

absence of permanent remote space, SSA uses temporary space, such as hotel conference rooms on an as needed basis, to hold hearings. Both the current and the 

prior Commissioner approved several new hearing offices based on the pressing 

need for the facilities. However, when the budgets were awarded, it was determined 

that adequate funding was not available. Two of the offices were Tallahassee and 

Ft. Myers, Florida. The need for permanent sites is even more important in an eDIB 

environment where computers are needed for each of the participants. An ideal situation provides for a permanent location so the equipment does not need to be stored, 

transported and set up for each day of hearings. Tallahassee not only does not have 

a hearing office, despite being approved by two Commissioners, but does not even 

have a permanent remote site. The option of video hearings does not exist in temporary remote sites because there is no place to install video communication lines 

and equipment. We believe additional funding is needed to establish permanent 

hearing offices at appropriate sites. Utilizing 2006 census data, Florida (with a population of 3.6 million people per office), Georgia (with 2.3 million people per office) 

and North Carolina (with almost 3 million people per office) have an extremely low 

number of offices relative to their population. By contrast, the other Region IV 

states have less than 1.5 million people per office. Undoubtedly, SSA needs additional funding to establish hearing offices and permanent remote sites within reach 

of the claimants they are mandated to serve. 

4. SSA Should Test Initiatives Before Full Implementation and Not Count 

on Their Success to Justify Reduced Staffing 

Late last year the Government Accountability Office issued a report that found 

that some of the key reasons for the backlog were the increase in applications, 

losses of key personnel, and management weaknesses. (Social Security Disability: 

Better Planning Management and Evaluation Could Help Address the Backlogs, December 7, 2007, GAO–08–40) Management weaknesses were compounded by the implementation of new initiatives without sufficient preliminary testing. The Disability 

Service Improvements initiative (in the New England region) and the Hearing Process Improvement initiative were severely criticized by GAO for lack of adequate 

testing. 

We are similarly concerned that SSA’s current implementation of new initiatives—like e-scheduling and other software improvements—without sufficient testing in pilot demonstrations will not offer promised productivity that SSA is counting 

on, and even possibly contribute to a larger backlog. For example, one new initiative—e-scheduling—is a centralized and computerized process of scheduling hearing 

participants: representatives, claimants, vocational experts, medical experts, and 

contract hearing reporters. Currently, a clerk calls these individuals to schedule and 

assure their availability. On the other hand, e-scheduling is more primitive in that 

it does not take into account the many variables that are involved in scheduling 

hearings. For example, many attorney representatives of claimants practice in multiple hearing offices, and the e-scheduling software does not know their Federal or 

state court schedule, the amount of time it takes to get from one hearing office to 

another if they are being scheduled for two offices in a day, how close an ALJ usually is able to keep on schedule, and other factors. While e-scheduling may work in 

some locations, it should be thoroughly tested before widespread implementation. 

More important, it should not be prematurely counted as a success that justifies a 

staffing reduction until it has been successfully implemented on a widespread basis. 

We have similar concerns regarding plans for the development of software to select 

and number medical evidence and eliminate duplicate exhibits. We believe ODAR 

should hire temporary employees to reduce the backlog until these initiatives are 

proven worthwhile. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

125 

5. SSA Should Realign the Workforce and Staffing Components of the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review 

ODAR’s workforce is not sufficiently balanced—in terms of the locations of ALJs 

and staff—to deal with the rising case backlog. For example, four offices have less 

than 300 cases pending per ALJ, while 26 offices have over 1,000 cases pending per 

ALJ. A realignment can be accomplished by a combination of case transfers and the 

realignment of service areas. Although the Commissioner plans to actually reduce 

case transfers, this approach had proven largely successful, though used only sporadically. We urge the Commissioner to continue these transfers until there is 

roughly the same processing time throughout the nation. 

Variances in waiting time are due to inadequate staffing, high growth of new 

cases, and the misaligned boundaries of service areas. While lack of productivity is 

sometimes used to explain long waits, the data shows that 35 offices receive less 

than two cases per ALJ per day, but eight offices receive over four cases per day 

per ALJ. Since average ALJ productivity is less than 2.5 cases per day, the misalignment of ALJs and cases in those eight offices contribute to the backlog. Until 

these underlying reasons are addressed and successful action taken to correct the 

problems they create, an aggressive case transfer process is needed. Historically, 

case transfers have been short term efforts, but they need to be viewed as an integral part of the business process until the inequalities in waiting times are resolved. 

6. The Correct Decision Should Be Made as Early as Possible in the Claim 

Review Process to Reduce Processing at the Hearing Level 

There is great disparity among the various state agencies that make the initial 

and reconsidered determinations on disability claims. In fiscal year 2006, the national average of initial claims allowed was 35%. Yet, Georgia allowed 25%, Tennessee allowed 23%, Kansas allowed 28%, Ohio allowed 27% and South Carolina allowed 23%, while New Hampshire allowed 59%, District of Columbia allowed 54%, 

Hawaii allowed 53% and Virginia allowed 44%. Congress has held hearings on this 

issue and there is still no compelling explanation of the disparity. One of former 

Commissioner Barnhart’s proposals in the Disability Service Improvement initiative 

was to create a Federal quality assurance program involving centralized review of 

cases from all over the country by the same Federal office. This is currently being 

carried out on a localized or regional basis when the reviewing entity and respective 

review standard are known by the state. We believe there should be a quality assurance process that applies a national and uniform policy of review. Such a policy 

should address the sufficiency or completeness of medical evidence before a decision 

is made. We support further inquiry to better to determine the reasons for the wide 

disparity in allowance among the states and at different levels. 

If SSA continues the current process of excessively denying eligible claimants initially, the administrative costs will naturally escalate as more cases continue to be 

appealed and waiting times increase. Obviously, wrongful initial denials cause great 

hardship to citizens who have paid their Social Security taxes to obtain insured status and do not receive the benefits to which they are entitled. 

Eleven years ago, GAO testified to the House Social Security Subcommittee that 

‘‘Despite SSA attempts to reduce the backlog through its STDP initiatives, the agency did not reach its goal of reducing this backlog to 375,000 by December, 1996.’’ 

(Social Security Administration: Actions to Reduce Backlogs and Achieve More Consistent Decisions Deserve High Priority, April 24, 1997, GAO/T–HEHS–97–118) The 

backlog at that time was defined as cases pending for more than 270 days, and the 

goal was to reduce pending cases to the 375,000-mark. Today, the backlog has exploded to more than 750,000 pending cases. Last year, SSA targeted adjudicating 

aged cases of 1,000 days at ODAR and this year is targeting 900-day-old cases. GAO 

has issued other reports addressing the lack of an effective quality assurance program and the failed effort of improving consistency between the initial decisions and 

hearings at the appeals level. (See, e.g., Social Security Administration: Disappointing Results from SSA’s Efforts to Improve the Disability Process Warrant Immediate Attention, February, 27, 2002, GAO–02–322) SSA needs to be sure its national criteria are applied as uniformly as possible at all levels and in all states. 

While the experience of the members the FBA’s Social Security Section is associated more directly with ODAR and the Appeals Council, we have noticed a significant decrease in service at the district offices, the teleservice center (800-number), 

the payment center, and the disability determination services. Essential workload 

such as continuing disability reviews and age 18 redeterminations to determine 

whether beneficiaries continue to qualify for benefits appear to be receiving less attention. It has been shown that continuing disability reviews (CDRs) save over $10 

of program funds for every $1 spent in administrative costs of conducting CDRs. We 

urge the Congress to appropriate sufficient funds so that the backlog of CDRs and 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

126 

redeterminations can be significantly reduced and bring about service increases in 

all components. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to appear before you 

today. The Social Security Section of the Federal Bar Association looks forward to 

working with you and the Social Security Administration in improving the disability 

process. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

f 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Thank you very much for your testimony. I 

thank all the panel. Mr. McCrery will inquire. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Mr. Schieber, the focus of this hearing, of 

course, is on the problems that we are having near the end of the 

disability determination process and getting those appeals processed. But if some of these issues have been handled better early 

in the process, we maybe wouldn’t have as big a problem to discuss 

today. What in your opinion are the most important investments 

and changes we can make to the beginning of the disability determination process to improve the whole system? 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Part of the challenge here is to gather sufficient 

information and good information as early in the process and on a 

systematic basis as you can. If you look at the DDS application 

process right now, in some states there is a relatively structured 

process for gathering information. 

This is a complicated program, and people come in with many 

disabling characteristics. Oftentimes, it really is quite difficult to 

ferret out exactly what it is that is the disabling condition. If you 

don’t go through collecting the information on a systematic process, 

then it is going to be extremely uneven. 

Now, the Commissioner talked about the development of their 

eCAT system that they tried to roll out as part of DSI in the Northeast. Conceptually, it is an extremely good idea. They had an electronic process for leading the examiner through collecting information to build file so a decision could be made. But when they rolled 

it out, it had not been properly developed, had not been tested, and 

basically tied up their whole operating system so they had to take 

it back down. 

SSA and the DDSS have started to redevelop. They have been 

going through a process with the state of Virginia and redeveloping 

this in what they call a lab environment. We actually visited with 

the folks in Virginia and some of the Social Security folks just a 

couple of weeks ago, and it looks like they have something extremely promising. They are going to come out with an updated 

version, in July. Connecticut is using this system, and it looks extremely promising. I think you need to begin to gather the data on 

a consistent basis across all of these states, and it needs to be as 

complete as possible. 

One of the things that Social Security has done, it worried about 

the processing time at the front end of the application process, and 

encouraged the DDS’s to move the application through in 90 days. 

Oftentimes that 90 day hurdle comes up and the medical data is 

not in the file. So, the DDS makes a denial, and they send it on 

up the line. When it gets up to ODAR for the appeals that medical 

evidence to be obtained for the file. Then as the ALJ begins to consider the case, they are considering a very different base of information than was considered at the front end of the process. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

127 

That is what I was talking about earlier when I said we need to 

integrate this process from beginning to end. We need to think 

about getting all of the information as quickly as we can so we can 

make a comprehensive decision as soon as we can. 

Mr. MCCRERY. What can we do in Congress, if anything, to facilitate that? 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Well I certainly think that as you think about 

budgets and how money is going to be spent, you should strongly 

encourage, one, that they get themselves into a consistent DDS 

platform across all of the states. The Federal government is paying 

for the DDS operations. They need to be on a consistent platform. 

Then it needs to be totally integrated with the subsequent steps in 

the process. If there is determination that the information that has 

been passed on to ODAR has been insufficiently developed, the 

hearing office staff needs to be able to determine that very quickly 

and get it back to the DDS to get it fully developed. 

We just heard here about cases that are now being referred back 

to the DDSs from ODAR that have sat there for 900 days, and now 

there are decisions being made that this person is disabled without 

further development. This case sat there for 900 days with the information we are using today to make a determination this person 

is disabled. That is insane. I don’t have to go explain it to them, 

but I am sure you do occasionally, and I would think you would 

want to put a stop to that sort of activity. 

Mr. MCCRERY. If I might just ask one more question about physician’s records. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Sure. 

Mr. MCCRERY. It seems that that is a recurring problem in getting everything together. We have a problem sometimes getting 

records from the physicians that have treated the individuals. Mr. 

Waitsman, do you find that to be a problem often? 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. It is. In Georgia, we pay a nominal fee, either free or $10 for the doctor to get the records or for the hospitals to 

give us the records. If you keep going back to the doctor at the initial stage, at reconsideration, the attorney every 6 months, every 

year, they write for records, and I write letters requesting records, 

eventually the providers just refuse to have anything to do with the 

program. 

Mr. MCCRERY. So, what can we do about that? Does anybody 

have any suggestions as to how we can—— 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. What doctors and hospitals have asked for 

was increased reimbursements so that they get more than $10 for 

giving years worth of medical records. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Ms. Ford. 

*Ms. FORD. The representatives that we work with in our coalition have indicated that, once they get involved in the case, they 

do some very practical things that SSA ought to look at doing. One 

of them is in fact, paying more for those records. 

Another thing is providing better explanations to the providers, 

the medical providers or whomever, exactly what the case is about 

and what evidence is needed. In addition, SSA should do a bit more 

targeted questioning when they know what the issues are. Further, 

more should to be done with the claimants in terms of explaining 

to them the process and why it is so important that they let SSA 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

128 

know all of the doctors and hospitals and providers that they have 

seen, and let SSA know everything that there is going on with the 

individual so that those impairments that are revealed at the last 

minute can come out earlier in the process. 

In addition, SSA must address training of adjudicators to ensure 

that they are all working from the same rules, and that they understand properly the evaluation of childhood disability, the use of 

the Social Security rulings, and the evaluation of the mental impairments, and pain and other subjective symptoms. 

These are some very practical things that need to happen, and 

there is a good bit of that in my written testimony. Thank you. 

Mr. MCCRERY. Thank you. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. Mr. Johnson will inquire. Excuse me, Mr. 

Lewis will inquire. 

*Mr. LEWIS. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me thank each Member of the panel for being here today. 

I would just like to take a moment to welcome Judge Waitsman for 

being here. I know you are a graduate of Emory University, located 

in the heart of my district, and thank you for all of your work, and 

thank each of you for your good work. 

Judge Waitsman, you know from firsthand experience the huge 

problem we are having with Social Security disability appeals in 

Atlanta. You know that people are dying, literally dying waiting for 

disability benefits that they deserve. 

Ms. Ford listed a dozen, unbelievable in your written testimony, 

are heartbreaking stories of people losing everything while they 

wait for benefits they deserve. 

These people who are too sick to work, too disabled to work, in 

Atlanta in my office, more than anything else, more than any other 

case or problem we have, the caseworkers, is dealing with Social 

Securities, Social Security disability. They call my office asking 

how they will pay their rent, how they will pay for medicine, how 

they are going to pay for food, or some people losing their homes 

while they wait for benefits. I don’t think it is fair, I don’t think 

it is right, I don’t think it is just in a society such as ours. 

I appreciate all the work that you are doing, Judge Waitsman in 

Atlanta, as an administrative law judge. I know, as a human being, 

not just as a judge, you know that people shouldn’t wait any 

longer. You heard the Commissioner talk about the steps they are 

taking in Atlanta. In your opinion, what needs to be done in Atlanta to really reduce the backlog? What does the Social Security 

Administration need from Congress to make sure that people get 

the benefits they need and get it now? I don’t understand it, I really don’t understand why people have to wait 600, 700, 800, 900 

days. You talked about what happened during Katrina. If for some 

emergency, why can’t we make the government work in such a 

fashion that we can transfer people from one part of the country 

to another part of the country to intervene. Can we hire more administrative law judges or hire more Social Security Employees to 

make it work? 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. Congressman, thanks for the kind introduction. We just don’t have enough resources in Atlanta, and I think 

when you have four cases coming in every day for every judge and 

average productivity is about two to two and a half cases, it is a 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

129 

resource issue above everything else. So, we have technologies that 

we can transfer cases around the country, we need more hearing 

space. For example, we hear cases in Atlanta, Gainesville, Augusta, 

and Athens. To the extent we get help in Augusta, we have only 

got one room, so we need more help. If we had a second room— 

we could hear more cases. 

*Mr. LEWIS. Do you travel? You travel from one—Do you actually travel? 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. Yes. 

*Mr. LEWIS. From one office to another office to hear a case? 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. Yes, we call them remote sites, and so we 

travel to all of those, plus we can do it by video. So, I think some 

of those offices—We are doing it to some degree, I don’t think sufficient level, having judges from California and other areas that 

don’t have enough work load, who receive less than two cases per 

day per judge, so they hear some cases. Part of the issue is if they 

do it by video, it is a three hour time change, so—— 

*Mr. LEWIS. How do you feel as a human being when you hear 

that someone came before you, they were trying to get their benefits, and a few weeks later, maybe a month later, a year later, you 

heard that they passed and never got their benefits? 

*Mr. WAITSMAN. It is extremely frustrating. It used to be unusual that we would have a death while a claim was pending. Now 

it is very common. It is not just the individual, it is a whole family 

that is affected for the one that doesn’t—if it is not a death, it is 

a family problem and issue. People are losing their homes. Many 

of the homeless shelters aren’t set up for families or couples, and 

so you are splitting up a family. 

You will have diseases such as an uncontrolled diabetic that 

maybe could be controlled if they had their insulin. If they don’t 

have their insulin, you see that case progress. Eventually, it is 

going to be a loss of vision, kidney failure, peripheral neuropathy. 

It is just a heartrending situation, that you know that the person 

that is not getting their hearing. And not getting their benefits. 

You are picking up that file that has been sitting around for two 

to 3 years, that it is a matter of time, before a tragedy and maybe 

that time arose before you even got the file. 

Mr. MCDERMOTT. I’m going ask Mr. McNulty to take the chair 

again [continuing]. I have a commitment I’ve got to go do. But I 

want to say that I think your last comments really raise the issue 

of why we can’t deal with poor people. We watched Katrina. We 

can’t seem to get that figured out. But we sure do spend a lot of 

time trying to speed up the licensing over at the FDA and a lot of 

other places when we can’t seem to put the resources in to deal 

with really what are the terrible. 

When you read these cases that this floor brought before us and 

you see people dying in the waiting room, you have got a serious 

failure of a system which I don’t think anybody—maybe no one deliberately sets out to do, but by our actions—and I think we can 

fix them—we can restore some integrity to the system. 

So, I appreciate all of you coming here and testifying before the 

Committee. 

Mr. McNulty? 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

130 

Mr. MCNULTY [presiding]. Thank you, Dr. McDermott. Mr. 

Johnson may inquire. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Schieber, you talked about a Federal Times article. I’ve got 

a copy of that article. It can be distributed, and I request it be inserted into the hearing record. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

**********COMMITTEE INSERT********** 

Mr. JOHNSON. Both the government and private sector have 

abysmal records on computer security breeches, along with protecting Social Security number, and preventing ID theft. This Committee is trying to stop that through legislation. Even our veterans 

have had their information stolen. 

What I’d like to know is why are we allowing employees to work 

from home? Personal information must be protected and not carried home. Can you tell us what you think about that? 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Well, I think protecting personal information 

should be of the highest order of concern. The reasons why people 

work at home, I think partly tie to history, partly tie to evolving 

social acceptance of work at home in not only government sector 

but in the private sector. There is a sense that in many regards 

it may be more efficient. It may be green. We’re in Earth Week, 

I think. That if we can allow people to do their job without having 

to commute, it saves them time, it saves resources, it doesn’t spew 

things into the atmosphere that would be spewed if they came to 

work. 

But the issue, though—I managed people in the private sector for 

30 years, and we had some work at home flex schedules that we 

allowed our employees. But it’s always a bit of a challenge. It 

seems to me the important thing is that we should do it if people 

can do the work at home and can be as efficient, and in many cases 

maybe even more efficient than they are by coming to the office. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, how do you protect the information that 

way? 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Well, I’m guess I’m getting to the punchline 

here. If you have to come to the office to do the work, then it seems 

to me that’s where you do the work, and going back to the fact that 

security here is of the highest order of importance, it may require 

that we rethink the way we were handling these files. Maybe that’s 

where work has to be done. Maybe moving into this more efficient 

environment is going to require some changes to work policies. We 

need some flexibility to get there, or we’re not going to be able to 

realize the efficiencies that Commissioner Astrue was talking 

about. 

Mr. JOHNSON. You know, Mr. Skwierczynski—is that close? 

*Mr. SKWIERCZYNSKI. Skwierczynski. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Sorry. 

*Mr. SKWIERCZYNSKI. Skwierczynski. Thank you. Stated that 

we should not believe people about their birth dates when they’re 

applying for retirement benefits. It seems to me that if a guy’s been 

working forever and using a birth date for 50–60 years, he 

shouldn’t have to provide a birth certificate for somebody to look 

at before he gets his retirement. What’s your opinion on that? 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

131 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Well, I was just sitting here thinking about my 

situation. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yeah, and do you know where your birth certificate is? 

Mr. SCHIEBER. Well, at the moment I don’t. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JOHNSON. I didn’t think so. 

Mr. SCHIEBER. I think I applied for my Social Security card it 

probably in 1960, and I have consistently told the Social Security 

Administration since then that I was born on July 24, 1946. You 

know, if I file for Social Security benefits, retirement benefits when 

I reach normal retirement age, they’ll have had that birth date on 

record for more than a half century. 

I think what the Commissioner is trying to do is look at the situation that he’s facing. This overwhelming burden of the baby 

boomers about to descending upon them, applying for benefits. 

Even if they can electrify the application process, so I can apply for 

my benefits online, under the old rules I was going to have to find 

my birth certificate and I was going to have to take it to a Social 

Security office. Well, we’ve been hearing here about how hard it is 

to get into the Social Security office, how overburdened the Social 

Security offices are, what the Commissioner is trying to do is find 

some practical ways that to deal with these issues. 

We have talked to him extensively about some of these things, 

about the application process. He’s taking things out of the application process that he thinks are peripheral to making a realistic and 

adequate and careful determination in most cases. He thinks that 

if I have been telling him I was born on July 24, 1946 for a half 

century, that, you know, if I came in and I told him that today, so 

I could qualify for benefits, then maybe they’d be suspect. But I 

surely wouldn’t have thought of that 50 years ago, so I could qualify for benefits today. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you know, a lot of states are going automatic on all that stuff. I mean you could even get licenses for your 

car on a computer nowadays. They believe what you put in there. 

I mean they don’t ask you for a piece of paper. I think that’s 

enough said on that. 

Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman.; 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. Brady may inquire. 

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you all 

being here today and offering your insight. Clearly, the Social Security disability process needs dramatic improvement. We all have 

different suggestions on how to do it, but your insight as users and 

providers of the system is a huge help. 

I will note, Sam, that I decide earlier that even if I had a question for Mr. Skwierczynski, I wasn’t going to ask it anyway, just 

for fear of mangling the name. 

So, I appreciate you having a—— 

Mr. MCNULTY. It’s phonetic. 

Mr. BRADY. So, thank you. Mr. McCrery asked my question. I 

too think that we have a continuing problem on the accuracy, completeness, and the timing of the medical records. I have always assumed that because the Social Security claimant representatives 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

132 

are skilled, that there would be a huge difference between the medical records of a claimant and one of those represented by a representative. 

But my question to you—and maybe I’ll ask Ms. Ford this—to 

your knowledge, have we ever measured the difference between the 

completeness and the timeliness of the medical records for claimants who have representatives and those who don’t? I mean you 

talked about some of the areas that representatives helped claims 

provided; that makes to me perfect sense. But have you ever measured the difference? Because clearly the more complete and more 

timely that medical record, my assumption is the more accurate 

and hopefully the quicker the system would render an accurate decision for that person. 

*Ms. FORD. Just a couple of points in response to that. I don’t 

think that we have done any studies on the development of evidence. One thing I would want to know is, of those people who are 

represented, whether representation, for different lengths of time 

prior to the hearing; makes a difference. And it depends on the individual and how soon they find somebody as to how long that representative has had to help develop the record. 

I’m being reminded by my colleague that the GAO is currently 

working on a report on the development of evidence. Hopefully 

there will be something helpful that comes out of their work. But, 

the representatives have said for years that there are some very 

practical things that can be done, that should be done by SSA, and 

perhaps these cases wouldn’t even reach the appeals level if the 

evidence was gathered earlier in the process. 

Mr. BRADY. No, it seems to me to make sense. I was just wondering if we need to try to find some way to measure that, so we 

can find out what those best practices are. You know what I mean? 

Because obviously I think that is one of the many keys to improving the whole process. 

So, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you all for being here. Thank 

you, Chairman. 

Mr. MCNULTY. Thank you, Mr. Brady. 

If there are not further questions, I want to thank the panel on 

behalf of Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery and all 

the Members of the Committee. 

I want to thank all of you, not just for your testimony today, but 

for your advocacy on behalf of our constituents and the American 

people. Sometimes we have these hearings to try to figure out what 

the problem is. We know what the problem is. We know, we are 

painfully aware of what the problem is. You have given us some 

good ideas about solutions. The ball is now in our court. We need 

to do these things in cooperation with the Administration and the 

Social Security Agency. 

So we have made some modest progress in the last couple of 

years, and the extra $150 million last year. We’ve got $240 million 

extra in our House budget resolution this year. We’re hiring 175 

new administrative law judges. We’re making some modest 

progress. 

But I thank particularly Mr. Skwierczynski for referring to a possible problem with continuing with the progress, and that’s some 

of us getting together and passing new laws, creating new addimmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

133 

tional massive workloads for the Social Security Administration 

that don’t have anything directly to do with Social Security. We 

need to guard against that, because I think you will agree that if 

we do something like that, it blows that progress we’ve made so far 

to smithereens. 

So, we need to keep our eye on the ball. We need to continue to 

make more progress beyond what we have done so far. Thank you 

for steering us in the right direction, and we look forward to working with each and every one of you to make more and more 

progress on this issue in the weeks, the months, and the years 

ahead. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[Questions for the Record follow:] 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

134 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.028
135 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.029
136 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.030
137 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.031
138 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.032
139 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.033
140 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.034
141 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.035
142 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.036
143 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.037
144 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.038
145 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.039
146 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.040
147 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.041
148 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.042
149 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.043
150 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.044
151 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.045
152 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.046
153 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.047
154 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.048
155 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.049
156 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.050
157 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.051
158 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.052
159 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.053
160 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.054
161 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.055
162 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.056
163 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.057
164 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.058
165 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.059
166 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.060
167 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.061
168 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.062
169 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.063
170 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.064
171 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.065
172 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.066
173 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.067
174 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.068
175 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.069
176 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.070
177 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.071
178 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.072
179 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.073
180 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.074
181 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.075
182 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.076
183 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.077
184 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.078
185 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.079
186 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.080
187 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.081
188 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116a.082
189 

1 National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the United States, 

2006, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics 2 An Employer’s Guide to Disability Income Insurance, AHIP 

3 2006 Council for Disability Awareness Claims Review 

[Submissions for the Record follow:] 

Statement of America’s Health Insurance Plans 

I. Introduction 

America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) is the national association representing 

approximately 1,300 health insurance plans that provide coverage to more than 200 

million Americans. Our members offer a broad range of products, including private 

disability income insurance to help consumers replace lost income in the event that 

a disabling condition forces them to leave the workforce for an extended period of 

time. 

We appreciate the Committee’s interest in reducing the backlog of pending claims 

for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits and ensuring that this important Federal program is meeting the needs of Americans with disabilities in a 

timely manner. As the Committee reviews these issues, we believe it is important 

to keep in mind the important role that private disability insurers play in offering 

products that protect consumers against the financial risk of a disabling illness or 

injury that prevents an individual from working for an extended period of time. Our 

statement provides an overview of private disability insurance, while also discussing 

the value this coverage offers to policyholders and a national education campaign 

we have launched to increase awareness about the importance of disability income 

protection. The statement also includes a brief description of steps that AHIP and 

our disability insurer members have undertaken to help the Social Security Administration (SSA) speed and improve SSDI claim adjudication. 

II. Overview of Disability Income Insurance 

Private disability income insurance provides tens of millions of Americans with 

protection that complements the safety net provided by the SSDI program. Approximately 38 percent of U.S. workers in private industry are covered by employer-sponsored short-term disability coverage, while 30 percent receive long-term disability 

insurance through their employers1. In addition to extending benefits to many persons who are not eligible for SSDI, or during the time the SSA is adjudicating an 

SSDI claim, this coverage provides a level of disability income benefits that spares 

many Americans from financial hardship. 

Short-term disability coverage typically pays benefits for 13 to 26 weeks based on 

a specified percentage of the employee’s pre-disability income—typically 60 percent—after sick leave has been exhausted. Circumstances that may trigger the payment of short-term disability benefits include temporary musculoskeletal or connective tissue conditions, pregnancies, and other illnesses or conditions that are resolved within a relatively short timeframe, thus allowing the employee to return to 

work before benefits are exhausted. The valuable protection offered by short-term 

disability coverage can be purchased at a reasonable price—an average of $174 annually, according to one study based on 2001–2003 data, when purchased as group 

coverage by employers2. This short-term protection can be purchased in combination 

with long-term disability coverage as part of a seamless package, with the shortterm and long-term benefits coordinated to ensure that disabled workers can meet 

their daily expenses and avoid financial hardship. 

Additional protection is offered by long-term disability coverage that begins to pay 

benefits when an individual’s sick leave and short-term benefits are exhausted. 

These long-term disability benefits continue anywhere from five years to the remainder of an individual’s life. Long-term disability insurance allows policyholders 

to sustain themselves financially if a catastrophic illness, injury, or disability takes 

them out of the workplace for an extended period of time. 

III. Value for Consumers 

In 2006, more than 500,000 individuals received long-term disability payments 

from private insurers. One-third of these individuals did not qualify for SSDI. Moreover, 95 percent of reported disabilities were not work-related and, therefore, not 

eligible for coverage under workers compensation.3

Private disability insurers resolve claims within 30 days or less for approximately 

75 to 80 percent of claimants, thus ensuring that benefits can be paid promptly to 

replace an eligible claimant’s lost wages. Our members’ track record exceeds the requirements set by Federal regulations, which establish a 45-day timeframe for the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

190 

4Survey of Rehabilitation and Return-to-Work Practices Among U.S. Disability Carriers, 

Milliman, Inc., May 2007 5 Council for Disability Awareness, 2006 Long-Term Disability Claims Review 

initial resolution of private disability claims and allow an extension—of up to a total 

of 105 days—if, for reasons beyond the control of the insurer, more time is required 

to gather information. 

In addition to replacing lost income for claimants in a timely fashion, private disability insurers play a key role in restoring disabled workers to financial self-sufficiency and maintaining productivity for America’s businesses. By investing in rehabilitation and return-to-work programs, private disability insurers are actively engaged in helping workers with disabilities return to the workforce. In fact, a survey 

by Milliman, Inc. found that private disability insurers spent an average of $3,200 

in 2005 on each disabled employee receiving rehabilitation and return-to-work services.4

These innovative programs include a wide range of strategies in recognition of the 

fact that persons with disabilities are highly diverse and face varying circumstances. 

Services offered by rehabilitation and return-to-work programs include medical case 

management, vocational and employment assessment, worksite modification, purchase of adaptive equipment, business and financial planning, retraining for a new 

occupation, and education expenses. The Milliman survey found that annual budgets for these programs, which vary by size of company, range from $450,000 to more 

than $10 million. 

Additionally, private disability insurers have been very proactive in designing 

policies that help claimants return to work. As a result, persons receiving private 

disability payments often have access to work incentive benefits, rehabilitation benefits, workplace accommodation benefits, and child or dependent care benefits during rehabilitation. These innovative benefits reflect our members’ strong commitment to promoting employment and self-sufficiency among persons with disabilities. 

Disability insurers also help consumers exercise their rights under the Social Security program. Specifically, disability insurers provide assistance in the application 

process to beneficiaries who may be eligible to apply for SSDI benefits. Claimants 

with expected long-term disabilities are encouraged to apply for SSDI benefits and, 

according to one study, two-thirds of individuals receiving private long-term disability income benefits also qualify for SSDI benefits.5

By encouraging and assisting claimants in pursuing SSDI benefits, disability insurers help them gain access to benefits beyond disability income payments. This 

includes additional benefits for a spouse and/or dependents, access to vocational assistance and other support from the SSA, and eligibility for Medicare benefits after 

a period of 24 months. 

A similar approach is taken by the Federal Employee Retirement System, which 

requires disabled beneficiaries to file for SSDI benefits. A requirement to apply for 

SSDI benefits is also part of many states’ workers’ compensation systems, as well 

as public employee retirement systems. 

IV. National Education Campaign 

AHIP has launched a national education campaign to promote awareness about 

the importance of disability income protection and to highlight the value disability 

insurance provides for workers, employers, and taxpayers. 

Recognizing that more than 100 million Americans lack private disability income 

protection, our campaign has created a Web site—www.yourincomeatrisk.org—focused on educating consumers about a wide range of disability-related issues. The 

need for such education is highlighted by survey findings showing that many American workers have misunderstandings about their likelihood of experiencing a disability. 

AHIP released survey findings in March 2008 indicating that most baby boomers 

underestimate their risk of suffering a disability that would cause them to miss 

work for an extended period of time. The survey, conducted by Harris Interactive 

on behalf of AHIP, found that just over a third of baby boomers think the chances 

of becoming disabled due to illness or injury is 5 percent or less, a slight majority 

think the chances are 10 percent or less, and two-thirds think the chances are 20 

percent or less. In reality, a worker has a 30 percent chance of suffering a disabling 

injury or illness causing him or her to miss three or more months of work before 

reaching retirement, according to the SSA. 

The survey also found that 47 percent of baby boomers say they are not too concerned about their chances of suffering a disabling illness or injury. One of the reasons baby boomers underestimate their risk is because they are unaware of the 

most common causes of disability, mistakenly believing that injuries cause more dismmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

191 

abilities than illnesses. According to the survey, baby boomers believe the most common causes of disability are back, muscle, or joint problems (26%), injuries on the 

job (18%), and injuries off the job (16%). In actuality, research shows that the most 

common causes of disability are illnesses such as cancer, heart disease, and diabetes. 

In the coming months, AHIP will be taking additional steps to continue our national education campaign. These steps include a retooling of our ‘‘Your Income At 

Risk’’ Web site, an updated consumer guide on disability income insurance, a new 

publication for policymakers and the media, and additional research on key disability issues. 

V. Private Disability Insurers Partnering with SSA to Help Speed SSDI 

Claim Adjudication 

AHIP and its disability insurer members are well aware of the challenges facing 

SSA and the SSDI program, and believe that the Agency needs more resources. Applications for SSDI benefits have increased steeply in recent years—and now arrive 

at the rate of more than 2.5 million each year. The increased SSDI workload also 

comes at a time of very serious limits on the Agency’s budget for administering its 

retirement income security and disability income security programs; attrition of the 

Agency workforce; and the addition of new responsibilities supporting the Medicare 

program and homeland security efforts. 

Congress has recognized SSA’s need for additional resources, and took steps last 

year to increase the Agency’s administrative funding. The Commissioner and his 

staff are also moving aggressively to reduce SSDI claim delays and backlogs through 

steps such as hiring additional Administrative Law Judges. 

AHIP and its private disability insurer members are also reaching out to offer assistance to help SSA speed and improve SSDI claim adjudication. For privately-covered workers who become short-term disability and/or long-term disability claimants, private disability insurers compile extensive disability claim information that 

is also of significant potential relevance and value to the SSDI claim adjudication 

process. SSA and a group of AHIP’s private disability insurer members are currently working to test new procedures that will facilitate SSA access to key claim 

information that will help SSA speed and improve the adjudication of private claimants who apply for SSDI. The test is initially focused on providing the Agency with 

objective medical evidence, such as attending physician statements and lab and test 

results, for claims expedited based on presumptive diagnoses and/or terminal prognosis. 

By providing the SSA with quality medical evidence already resident in private 

disability claim files, we can begin to demonstrate the benefits of enhanced cooperation between private disability insurers and the nation’s primary public disability 

income assistance program. These steps can lead to even more robust information 

sharing and other enhanced public-private cooperation in the future. 

VI. Conclusion 

AHIP and our members look forward to maintaining a dialogue with Committee 

Members about the challenges facing the SSDI program and the role of private disability insurance in providing consumers with financial protection against the high 

costs associated with disability. 

f 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

192 

Statement of the American Bar Association 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of the American Bar Association (‘‘ABA’’) and its more than 400,000 

members nationwide, I write to present the views of the American Bar Association 

on clearing the Social Security Administration’s backlog of disability claims and providing the agency with the resources it needs to provide the benefits earned by 

workers in this country. The American Bar Association commends the House Committee on Ways and Means for maintaining a sharp focus on working to solve a set 

of agency problems that inflict a terrible human toll on hundreds of thousands of 

Americans who are disabled and suffering financially due to the loss of their income 

and who are unable to obtain timely and fair determinations of their disability 

claims. The unprecedented backlog of cases was created because for many years 

SSA was severely under-funded. 

The ABA has a long-standing interest in the Social Security Administration’s disability benefits decision-making process, and we have worked actively for over two 

decades to promote increased efficiency and fairness in this system. As a diverse organization representing the legal profession in the United States, the ABA has been 

able to draw upon the considerable expertise of our membership—claimants’ representatives, administrative law judges, academicians and agency staff—to develop 

a wide-ranging body of recommendations on the disability adjudication process. The 

Section of Administrative Law, the Judicial Division and the Commission on Law 

and Aging have worked to develop our ABA recommendations, the goals of which 

are to improve the quality of decision-making, increase fairness and efficiency for 

claimants, help alleviate the backlog, encourage clarity in communications with 

claimants, promote procedural due process protections, and seek the application of 

appropriate, consistent legal standards at all stages of the adjudication process. 

At its April 2008 meeting, the ABA’s Board of Governors adopted policy pertaining to the Social Security Administration’s administrative budget. The policy 

states: 

RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges Congress to enact a level 

of administrative funding for the Social Security Administration that permits the 

Social Security Administration to provide its mandated services in a timely manner, 

promptly and fairly adjudicate applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits, overcome significant disability claims processing 

times and backlogs, and build the infrastructure necessary to manage the expanding 

workload challenges presented by serving the aging baby boomers filing disability 

and retirement claims. 

The President’s FY 2009 budget proposes administrative resources of $10.460 billion for the SSA, a six percent increase over FY 2008. While this represents a 

praiseworthy step forward toward reducing the backlogs and improving services to 

the public, it is inadequate to provide mandated services in a timely manner and 

to promptly and fairly adjudicate applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits. As Commissioner Astrue testified at your April 

23rd hearings, SSA requires a minimum increase of $400 million to meet increases 

in personnel and infrastructure costs alone for the fiscal year that starts in October 

2008. The President’s budget is insufficient to maintain an adequate number of administrative law judges and support staff and continue reducing the backlog, and 

does not address the inadequate levels of service provided to the public in SSA field 

offices and customer service centers. It is up to Congress to determine the responsible measure of support needed above and beyond the President’s proposal. We 

commend this Committee for pursuing the tough fiscal and strategic question of determining a level of funding that will ensure that the agency does the job that the 

American people and their elected representatives expect it to do. 

The ABA urges Congress, now and in future years, to provide SSA with sufficient 

administrative funding to continue to work to reduce the significant backlog of initial claims and appeals of disability cases, to reverse crippling cuts in services to 

the public, and to provide a sustained level of administrative funding that permits 

the agency to provide its mandated services in a timely manner, promptly and fairly 

adjudicate applications for disability insurance and supplemental security income 

benefits, overcome significant disability claims processing times and backlogs, and 

build the infrastructure necessary to manage the significant workload challenges 

presented by serving the aging baby boomers filing disability and retirement claims. 

We appreciate the opportunity to submit our comments and would be pleased to 

offer our assistance to the Committee as it addresses the backlog in disability claims 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

193 

and other declines in service to the public resulting from years of under-funding of 

the agency’s administrative expenses. 

Thank you for considering our views on this important matter. 

Sincerely, 

Denise A. Cardman 

Acting Director 

cc. Members, Committee on Ways and Means 

f 

Statement of Barbara Gay 

The American Association of Homes and Services for the Aging (AAHSA) is 

pleased to submit this comment on the need to include long-term care in any legislated reform of the U.S. healthcare system. AAHSA members (www.aahsa.org) help 

millions of individuals and their families every day through mission-driven, not-forprofit organizations dedicated to providing the services that people need, when they 

need them, in the place they call home. Our 5,800 member organizations, many of 

which have served their communities for generations, offer the continuum of aging 

services: adult day services, home health, community services, senior housing, assisted living residences, continuing care retirement communities and nursing 

homes. AAHSA’s commitment is to create the future of aging services through quality people can trust. 

In his April 15 testimony, former Senator David Durenberger said that addressing 

long-term care financing would be a first step toward an income security policy for 

this country. We would add our voice to his in calling on policymakers not to overlook long-term care in developing a more rational system of healthcare coverage for 

Americans. 

On November 2, 1993, the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee held a hearing 

on healthcare reform. At that time, we testified that, ‘‘the demographic imperative 

is upon us,’’ and pointed out that the lack of coverage for long-term care can be just 

as catastrophic for families as the lack of general health insurance. 

Sadly, little has changed in the intervening fourteen years in the way long-term 

care is financed. In 1993, private insurance covered only three percent of long-term 

care costs. The annual cost of long-term care far outstripped the ability of most individuals and families to pay for it. The cost of long-term care for those who had spent 

down their financial resources and become eligible for Medicaid was a substantial 

and growing burden on Federal and state governments. Family members often exhausted their physical and financial abilities to provide care at home and businesses 

experienced growing costs of employee sickness, absenteeism, and diminished productivity due to this ‘‘major unfunded liability,’’ as our testimony termed the lack 

of long-term care coverage. 

Today, Medicaid continues to be the primary governmental source of coverage for 

long-term care, and the cost to states in particular supplants spending on other important state responsibilities such as education and transportation. Individuals and 

families cover 52% of long-term care costs out of pocket. The cost of paid long-term 

care is only the tip of the iceberg; approximately 75% of long-term services and supports are provided by family members on an unpaid basis, often at a heavy physical 

and financial cost, including lost opportunities for employment, health insurance, 

and retirement savings. Despite almost three decades of marketing and generous 

Federal tax incentives, the ‘‘take-up’’ of private long-term care insurance has been 

sluggish, and this coverage is unavailable to the thousands of Americans who have 

experienced a serious illness or other ‘‘pre-existing condition.’’ As a result, private 

long-term care insurance continues to cover only a fraction of long-term care costs. 

Consumers often are surprised that nursing home care and services provided in 

the home and community are not covered either by private health insurance or for 

the most part by Medicare. In fact, it makes no intrinsic sense to separate coverage 

of long-term services and supports from other kinds of healthcare coverage. Longterm care involves many of the same healthcare providers—nurses, doctors, hospitals, pharmacists—who provide other forms of healthcare. Services that in the 

past were provided primarily in hospitals now often are provided in nursing homes 


mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.027
194 

or in community-based settings. The line between long-term care and the rest of 

healthcare was never bright and the evolution of healthcare over the last generation 

has obscured it even more. 

Costs do not disappear if they are not covered by government programs or private 

insurance. The burden of covering them simply shifts to different levels of government, to private businesses, and to individuals and their families, often at a time 

when they are least prepared to handle them. Including long-term care in 

healthcare reform is essential to integrate services for consumers and to prevent the 

inefficiencies that result from hidden cost-shifting. 

Recognizing the need for a new approach to financing long-term care, AAHSA has 

spent the last few years researching and developing a proposal for an equitable and 

affordable system of long-term care coverage. Our plan calls for a public insurance 

program, with participation on an ‘‘opt-out’’ basis to make it as universal as possible, financed by participants’ premium payments. Benefits would be paid on the 

basis of disability, assessed according to the level of need for assistance with activities of daily living. Our Long-Term Care Financing Cabinet issued its recommendations last year, and we have since completed economic modeling that demonstrates 

the feasibility of our financing proposal. More information on our proposal and on 

the need for a better system of long-term care financing is available on our website, 

at http://www.thelongtermcaresolution.org/LearnMore.aspx. 

A consensus on the need for long-term care financing reform along these lines is 

emerging among many organizations that represent elders and people with disabilities. Recently, the Leadership Council of Aging Organizations and the Coordinating 

Council for Disabilities jointly endorsed the principles underlying our proposal. Together, the two coalitions represent over 150 organizations of elders, people with 

disabilities, and providers of health, housing and supportive services. 

In another fourteen years, the oldest of the baby boomers will reach age 76. We 

no longer have the luxury of predicting a future train-wreck in financing long-term 

care; the trains are now within sight of each other. To truly protect American families against catastrophic healthcare expenditures, Congress must include long-term 

care in whatever healthcare reform plan it considers. 

Every family faces the potential costs of long-term care, and every family needs 

a structure for personal planning with the protection of a public program as well. 

AAHSA and our members look forward to working with the Ways and Means Committee on a comprehensive and badly-needed reform of our entire healthcare system 

that will address long-term supports and services along with other health issues and 

give Americans a healthy, ethical, and affordable system of which we can all be 

proud. 

f 

Statement of Colleen M. Kelley 

Good morning Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery and Members of the 

Committee on Ways and Means. My name is Colleen M. Kelley and I am National 

President of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU). NTEU represents 

over 150,000 Federal employees in 31 agencies. Among them are the nine hundred 

Attorney-Advisers and other staff members in approximately 110 Office of Disability 

Adjudication and Review (ODAR) Hearing and Regional Offices across the United 

States. Our union has long been troubled by the unacceptable backlog of cases before ODAR and believes that prompt congressional action is needed to resolve this 

crisis in service to the American public, particularly those disabled Americans applying for earned social insurance benefits. 

Disability adjudication at SSA has a long and troubled history. The current problems with the SSA disability program began in the early 1990s when the cases 

pending at OHA hearing offices rose from approximately 180,000 in 1991 to approximately 550,000 in mid-1995. Currently over 750,000 cases are pending at ODAR 

hearing offices and processing times in 85% of all hearing offices are in excess of 

one year. However, a quick review of the history of the number of cases pending 

at ODAR demonstrates that the backlog problem is not altogether intractable. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

195 

The number of cases pending at OHA hearing offices declined from 1995 through 

1999, and in fact by the end of FY 1999 there was no longer a backlog, since 300,000 

cases was deemed to be the optimum number of pending cases for efficient adjudication. The decline in pending during that time period is the direct result of the over 

220,000 decisions produced by initiatives included in the Short Term Disability Program (STDP), the vast majority of which were produced by Senior Attorneys. The 

Hearing Process Improvement program (HPI) ended the Senior Attorney Program. 

The demise of the Senior Attorney Program and the rise of the backlog were not 

coincidental and are illustrative of the management deficiencies that have plagued 

the disability program. 

Over 750,000 cases are currently pending at ODAR hearing offices. This translates into an average processing time of 510 days at ODAR. Even this is somewhat 

misleading. Currently, the average processing time for a case that proceeds through 

an ALJ hearing decision is 553 days. In the Chicago Region the average processing 

time through an ALJ hearing decision is 727 days; 3 days short of two years. Even 

these unconscionable numbers do not include the time the case was at the State 

Agency for an initial and reconsideration determination. To further darken the picture is the specter of significantly increased receipts resulting from the aging ‘‘baby 

boomers’’ and the less than robust national economy. Unless decisive action is taken 

now, the dysfunction of the disability system may lead to the public’s loss of faith 

in Social Security. 

The salient fact about the current SSA disability adjudication process is that it 

is unconscionably slow causing untold harm to some of the most vulnerable members of society. None will dispute that the public deserves far better service than 

SSA is presently providing. The current situation is both a failure of adequate funding and of proper planning and management. 

Additional resources are very much needed as well as a reform of an inefficient 

adjudicatory process characterized by an insufficient number of adjudicators and the 

misuse of those adjudicators. Requiring an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to adjudicate each and every case at ODAR hearing offices is grossly inefficient and extremely expensive. Many cases (dismissals, fully favorable on-the-record cases, and 

requested closed period cases) can be disposed of without ALJ involvement. 

Given the underfunding of the agency, SSA is under an absolute duty to use what 

funding it has as efficiently as possible. This year Congress has provided greater 

funding, and SSA has decided to use part of that increase to hire 175 new Administrative Law Judges; unfortunately, SSA has not seen fit to provide adequate staff 

to support these new ALJs. Recently, SSA conducted the largest hiring of ALJs (135 

ALJs) in this nation’s history, and intends to hire at least 40 more ALJs before the 

end of the fiscal year. Certainly, the hiring of such a large number of new adjudicaVerDate Nov 24 2008 06:45 Jun 13, 2009 Jkt 048116 PO 00000 Frm 00199 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\48116.XXX 48116

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB48116A.026
196 

tors will have an impact on SSA’s disability backlog. However, the number of support staff for ALJs in ODAR was critically low before the recent hiring. While it is 

not altogether clear how many additional support staff SSA intends to hire this 

year, even the most optimistic projections (143) are grossly inadequate. Hearing offices were critically understaffed before the acquisition of as many as 135 new ALJs 

(and 40 more to be added this fiscal year) and are in far worse position now. 

In his recent response to questions from the House Appropriations Committee, the 

Honorable Ronald G. Bernoski, President of the Association of Administrative Law 

Judges, stated that a judge could not perform his/her work in isolation and the support of sufficient competent and trained staff is essential. He further indicated that 

adequate staff included 2.5 attorneys and 2.0 clericals for each ALJ. While hiring 

a large number of new ALJs ‘‘looks good’’, unless they and the current ALJs are 

properly supported, a reasonable return for the expenses incurred simply will not 

happen. 

Without sufficient staff, SSA cannot prepare enough cases to fill the dockets of 

the ALJs or timely prepare and issue the written decisions. More ALJs without 

more staff will mean even more unfilled dockets, decreased ALJ productivity and 

wasted SSA assets. It is prudent, if nothing else, to use remaining funds to hire the 

necessary staff to make current ALJs productive. 

No doubt part of the reluctance to properly staff ODAR hearing offices is the Administration’s commitment to ‘‘contracting out’’ many inherently governmental activities. Additionally, the Agency places a great deal of emphasis on the benefits of 

automation in improving Agency operations. The GAO Report of December 2007 reported that many SSA senior managers and ALJs recommended a staffing ratio of 

5.25 support staff to administrative law judge. It also indicated that the recommended staffing ratio could change as SSA implemented planned automation initiatives intended to improve the hearing process and increase efficiency. In many 

instances this emphasis on automation may well be justified, but in other areas experience has shown its relative merits are questionable. Automation may improve 

the situation over time, but the fact of the matter is that SSA automation initiatives 

rarely, if ever, come in on time, and even more rarely deliver what was promised. 

SSA is also committing funds to establishing ‘‘National Hearing Centers’’. The 

first is already operational in Falls Church, VA; the Commissioner recently announced a second to be situated in Albuquerque, NM, a city that already has a hearing office. It is not clear what operational efficiencies are achieved through the establishment of these adjudicating entities that are not already and better served at 

hearing offices. Certainly the capacity for conducting video-conference hearings already exists in nearly every current hearing office to facilitate conducting remote 

hearings and for adjudicating temporary excess workloads. The centralized nature 

of National Hearing Centers will alienate the public and further damage the Agency’s credibility. For more than seventy years SSA has strived to maintain face-toface contact at the local level with the public it serves. This is one of the factors 

that separate SSA from the majority of Federal agencies. National Hearing Centers 

would significantly weaken the bond between SSA and the public it serves. 

The advent of the electronic hearing folders facilitates movement of cases to other 

hearing offices as easily as to a National Hearing Center. There is no operational 

justification for the establishment of such centers. Moreover, their unique staffing 

structure emphasizes the Agency’s commitment to achieving its political goals over 

providing high quality service to the public. 

Interestingly enough, in addition to hiring new ALJs, SSA has already commenced a program that if properly implemented will eliminate the backlog. Commissioner Astrue has reinstituted a version of the old Senior Attorney Program that 

was responsible for eliminating the disability backlog in the 1990’s. Not surprisingly, the current program, the Attorney Adjudicator Program, is proving to be a 

success in spite of some ill-founded limitations. However, since its commencement, 

improvements have been authorized and its scope expanded. Nonetheless, it is this 

program with further modifications and additions that shows the way to an adjudicatory process at ODAR that is both effective and fiscally responsible. 

Judge Bernoski has noted on numerous occasions the necessity of reducing the 

number of cases that proceed to an ALJ hearing. In his response to questions from 

the Appropriation Committee he stated, ‘‘Social Security can no longer have over 

90% of its disability cases continuing on to a full hearing before an administrative 

law judge.’’ Judge Bernoski further stated ‘‘nowhere in our judicial system is a judge 

required to take to hearing such a high percentage of cases compared to the total 

docket.’’ NTEU absolutely concurs. 

The simple fact of the matter is that neither a hearing nor an ALJ is needed to 

dispose of every case. By relieving ALJs of the responsibility for adjudicating cases 

which do not require an ALJ, the ability of ALJs to focus on those cases requiring 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

197 

their expertise can be enhanced. That is the rationale behind the Attorney Adjudicator Program. 

Attorney Adjudicators, who have limited decisional authority, augmenting the 

ALJ corps constitute an effective and fiscally responsible adjudicative process. The 

one area of controversy involving the former Senior Attorney Program, decisional accuracy, is not a problem with the current program. Initial accuracy figures for the 

Attorney Adjudicator Program show an accuracy rate of 95%. 

Experience has demonstrated that between 25–40% of claims appealed to ODAR 

hearing offices could result in fully favorable decisions without an ALJ hearing. Additionally, 15–17% of cases appealed to hearing offices are dismissed, many because 

of abandonment by the claimant or technical defects. Very few of these cases require 

ALJ involvement. Such dismissals should be handled by Attorney Adjudicators 

thereby freeing the ALJ to adjudicate cases requiring an ALJ decision. Consequently, 40–50% of appeals to ODAR can potentially be adjudicated without the 

involvement of an ALJ. 

The success of the former Senior Attorney Program in eliminating the backlog of 

the 1990’s and the very favorable beginning of the current Attorney Adjudicator Program render arguing the merits of the concept of attorney adjudication unnecessary. 

Management has recently announced a significant increase in the number of Senior 

Attorneys that will further increase the capacity of the current Attorney Adjudicator 

Program. 

Nonetheless, despite the promise of the Attorney Adjudicator Program, the current crisis is of such magnitude that additional changes are required if SSA is to 

get control of the backlog problem within an acceptable timeframe. Recently, the 

Agency announced an increase in the number of Senior Attorneys to 450; a net increase of 81 positions. However, the time allocated to case adjudication is typically 

25% or less. At this rate, the Agency expects approximately 30,000 fully favorable 

adjudications this fiscal year. While this may temporarily stem the increase in the 

pending cases, its long term effect, even considering the augmentation of the ALJ 

Corps to 1,250 ALJs, will not eliminate the backlog. 

By increasing the number of Senior Attorneys to 700 and permitting them to 

spend 50% of their time reviewing every disability case appealed to ODAR and adjudicating the 40–50% of cases that do not require ALJ participation, SSA can immediately reduce its pending cases by well over 100,000 cases a year in spite of the 

increased receipts expected. 

The Attorney Adjudicator Program does involve decreasing the availability of the 

attorney advisers for their traditional role of drafting ALJ decisions. However, several other efficiencies are promoted by the Attorney Adjudicator Program. Attorney 

Adjudicators work on ‘‘unpulled’’ or ‘‘unassembled’’ files. Those that result in fully 

favorable decisions do not have to be ‘‘pulled’’. The benefit from not having to ‘‘pull’’ 

these cases cannot be overstated. Today there are approximately 442,000 cases 

pending pulling; a workload that will require over 200 days to complete if no new 

cases were received by ODAR during that 200 days. Most ALJs will not hold hearings on ‘‘unpulled’’ cases and ODAR’s difficulty pulling sufficient cases to maintain 

ALJ dockets is a significant factor in the creation and maintenance of the current 

backlog. Each disposition by an attorney adjudicator is one less case that must be 

pulled. 

Attorney Adjudicators would continue to draft ALJ decisions in addition to handling their own adjudicatory dockets. Skilled decision drafting remains a vital component of the ALJ adjudicatory process. Retaining ODAR’s most skilled staff to perform that duty is essential if ODAR is to continue to produce quality decisions. Assigning decision making duties to attorneys whose primary duty now is to advise 

ALJs and draft decisions is obviously going to result in a decrease in decision drafting capacity. SSA now has the assets to hire an additional 200 attorneys to maintain sufficient decision drafting capacity and 100 additional technical staff to process 

the increased number of decisions. Even considering the cost of the promotions of 

current employees consistent with their new duties, the total expense is far less 

than that involved with hiring the massive number of ALJs and the staff that would 

otherwise be necessary to support the ALJs. 

In addition to increasing the number of attorney adjudicators, small procedural 

adjustments would further enhance operational efficiency. Currently, Attorney Adjudicators may conduct pre-hearing conferences. Currently they can issue interrogatories to secure vocational and medical expert input. Often this is all that is required to perfect the record and allow for a fully favorable decision. While written 

interrogatories significantly expand the number of cases for which Attorney Adjudicators can issue fully favorable decisions, they can be cumbersome and time consuming. ODAR should authorize the attendance of medical and vocational experts 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

198 

at the pre-hearing conference thereby increasing decisional accuracy while decreasing processing time. 

If the current Attorney Adjudicator Program is expanded as detailed above, ODAR 

attorneys could dispose of 100,000 fully favorable decisions and dismissals or more 

each year, while still spending nearly half their time drafting ALJ decisions and advising ALJs. These cases would not require the expenditure of any ALJ resources 

and would involve relatively little staff time. This would allow the Agency to commit 

a greater amount of its resources to the cases that required ALJ adjudication. 

Let me also address the situation with OFEDRO. SSA has suspended further expansion of the Office of Federal Reviewing Officer (OFEDRO). OFEDRO has the potential to meaningfully help with the disability determination backlog if properly 

implemented. If SSA intends to resume hiring of new staff for FEDRO, it should 

give preference to the existing, high qualified and experienced staff at ODAR. In 

order to recruit the best and brightest staff for any expansion of the program, it 

should provide relocation allowances for all new hires recruited from elsewhere in 

the agency. This is a common recruitment tool in the Federal sector for highly qualified professionals and has been underused by the agency. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to present NTEU’s statement on 

this important matter. NTEU remains ready to work with the Ways and Means 

Committee to do all that we can to address the crisis in the disability determination 

backlog. Thank you. 

f 

Statement of Connie Plemmons 

As project manager for the Disabled Homeless Project at Catholic Social Services 

of Baldwin County, I see the backlog of Social Security Disability cases first hand. 

The HUD grant I administer targets those who are backlogged in this system. These 

people are being told by the local SSA office they will get a determination within 

90 days. Most of them believe they will get a check following those 90 days. They 

are devastated when they learn most cases are denied within 90 days, and then 

they must wait 18 months before they are scheduled for a hearing, then another 

60 to 90 days before they get a check. My question is; what is the office of Determination doing? Why are these cases being denied by Determination just to be approved later by the ALJ? Has anyone looked at the cases denied at the Determination level and compared them to the cases approved at the ALJ level? Now I am 

being told that a new level of bureaucracy is being created with an ‘‘assumptive approval’’ being allowed by folks not employed by the Office of Determination and Appeals. How can people who are not trained to do this job do a better job than the 

folks at Determination? It is a classic case of waste on the part of the United States 

Government! My tax dollars must be better spent. Fix the system we have. Do not 

create more levels of bureaucracy to use resources that could be helping the folks 

that really need the help, the disabled folks! 

Yours in service to God and our country, 

Connie Plemmons 

f 

Statement of David Hansell 

The New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) is the 

state agency charged with helping New York’s most vulnerable citizens achieve and 

maintain economic security through a range of work supports and services. OTDA’s 

mission is multi-faceted: Assist those who are working but still struggling to meet 

basic needs; help work-capable individuals find and maintain employment; and assist those individuals with special needs for whom engaging in work is not a realistic priority. In order to fulfill this complex mission, OTDA oversees a range of programs that together weave a web of services and benefits to help families who often 

face more than one barrier to economic independence. These programs include employment and training services, food stamps, child support, home energy assistance, 

immigration services, public assistance, and SSI state supplementation. Additionally, OTDA includes the Division of Disability Determinations (DDD), the entity 

which serves as the Disability Determination Service in New York, and as such is 

responsible for making Federal disability determinations for claims filed with the 

Social Security Administration (SSA). 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

199 

Since OTDA’s oversight includes Federal disability determinations, the state’s 

public assistance programs and SSI state supplementation, our perspective encompasses both our successful relationship with the Social Security Administration with 

regard to disability determinations and the troubling impact the SSA backlog has 

on New Yorkers generally, and on public assistance clients awaiting an appeal in 

particular. 

DDD makes medical determinations on disability claims filed with the Social Security Administration (SSA) for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social 

Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). The office collects all relevant medical evidence, and if needed, arranges for the claimant to have an examination to gather 

further information. A decision regarding medical eligibility is then made by DDD 

based on all of the evidence. These two programs represent the major economic support systems for the disabled. Additionally, individuals receiving Federal disability 

benefits also become eligible for essential health insurance through Medicare and 

Medicaid. 

New York’s DDD has long had a strong partnership with the SSA. We value this 

relationship greatly, as it is beneficial for our State, for the Federal government, 

and most importantly for disability claimants. In addition, the DDD has a solid performance record, meeting and often exceeding performance standards. Indeed, in addition to its standard responsibilities, DDD often takes on extra tasks such as working with SSA on pilot projects or helping other locations with reviewing their disability applications. For example, DDD is currently working to assist SSA with addressing the backlog through the Informal Remand Initiative. Under this initiative, 

the SSA sends certain cases to DDD to review in an effort to reduce the workload 

of the hearing officers. 

Despite this initiative and other efforts by the SSA, the backlog in appeals cases 

persists, and the impact on New York is enormous, both at the individual and state 

government levels. Nearly 38,000 New Yorkers are waiting for an appeal. These individuals wait 21 months on average, a delay that in many cases results in a tragic 

loss of savings, home or even life for some of the chronically ill or critically disabled 

individuals seeking Federal benefits. Of this total, more than 17,000 individuals 

awaiting an appeal are on public assistance. This state-funded assistance is intended to be a short-term stopgap. However, because of the long waiting period resulting from the backlog, the state is providing months, sometimes more than a year 

of assistance for individuals who, but for the backlog, are truly the responsibility 

of the Federal government. More importantly, since the public assistance grant is 

typically less than the disability payment, the long delay means that disabled individuals are not getting the level of financial support to which they are entitled and 

need from the Federal government. 

Moreover, the long wait places the state in a troubling position with regard to the 

Federal rules governing the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In cases where it has been determined by the TANF program that a public 

assistance client meets the Federal requirements for a disability and the appropriate application has been filed to receive SSI, New York exempts the individual 

from TANF work requirements, and provides him or her with public assistance for 

the duration of the disability determination. However, while the state exempts these 

individuals from TANF work requirements, Federal TANF rules do not. Therefore, 

while the state is providing income support to these individuals who are not able 

to engage in full-time work due to their disability, we are at risk of penalties for 

not meeting the required TANF work participation rate. This policy is extremely 

problematic for states attempting to balance the conflicting demands of these two 

Federal programs, and New York has been vigorously advocating for a common 

sense solution through changes in TANF regulation. However, not only is this problem not resolved, it has been exacerbated by the long waits for Federal assistance 

resulting from the enormous backlog. 

By reducing the backlog in appeals and, therefore, reducing the waiting period, 

individuals whose appeals are accepted would begin timely receipt of appropriate 

Federal assistance, therefore freeing up scarce state public assistance dollars for 

other pressing needs. And for all who are waiting, reducing the waiting period 

would minimize the potential for loss, both financial and personal, and help these 

people on a path to economic stability. 

Through the strong relationship between the DDD and SSA, OTDA recognizes 

that SSA is making a valiant effort to address the backlog despite a difficult combination of circumstances: years of insufficient funding, expansion of responsibilities, and an overstretched staff. This problem is due in part to an inadequate number of Administrative Law Judges (ALJ) and support staff at the SSA to conduct 

hearings and make determinations. However, despite repeated requests for increased funding to address this issue, the SSA has not received adequate funding 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

200 

to address this staffing shortage. While Congress provided an increase in the FFY 

2008 omnibus appropriations with language directing that the funds be used for this 

purpose, given the size of the backlog and the extensive wait times, more funding 

will certainly be needed. We urge Congress to provide the SSA with sufficient funding to address this backlog and prevent it from happening again in the future. 

Given the increase in funding for FFY 2008, OTDA commends SSA for hiring 135 

new ALJs this year. However, we join Senators Charles Schumer (D–NY) and Hillary Clinton (D–NY) in asking that the geographical allocation of the new ALJs be 

revisited. We understand from the testimony at the House Ways and Means Committee hearing on the disability backlog that the allocation was intended to help offices carrying a significant backlog caseload, yet only 10 of the 135 new ALJs were 

assigned in New York, and to only four of the State’s nine hearing offices. Furthermore, no new ALJs were assigned to the Buffalo office, even though that office currently has one of the longest wait times in the country. The explanation that the 

allocation was made in this manner due to the lack of office space for additional 

staff is troubling. Thousands of individuals should not be made to wait for disability 

assistance to which they are entitled because SSA cannot find office space. OTDA 

urges SSA to reconsider the allocation plan, and stands ready to offer assistance in 

finding adequate office space if necessary. 

In addition to increased funding and a reallocation of new ALJs, OTDA recommends that Congress consider changing the criteria currently used to determine 

eligibility at the time of the initial application. ALJs are allowed significantly more 

discretion in allowing cases at appeal, and DDD can often tell when a case that is 

being rejected based on the standard of evidence for the initial application will be 

approved upon appeal. If the DDD were allowed similar discretion to the ALJs, then 

the process would be expedited without impacting the integrity of the decision process, thereby reducing the number of cases going to appeal, and reducing the backlog. 

For the millions of individuals dealing with disabilities, SSI and SSDI are the lifeline that helps them maintain economic stability and security. With sufficient funding and other changes, the SSA will be able to eliminate the backlog and provide 

this critical support to many vulnerable people eligible for and entitled to Federal 

disability assistance. 

We hope hearings like this one will catalyze changes for the SSA. We thank you 

for the opportunity to comment on this important issue. 

f 

Statement of Harry Wanous 

Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel 

Representative Rangel there is a Bill that seats in the House Ways and Means 

Committee it is, H.R. 2943. The Title of the Bill is ( To amend titles II and XVI 

of the Social Security Act to provide for treatment of disability rated and certified 

as total by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs as disability for purposes of such titles.) 

The short Title is (This Act may be cited as the ‘Benefit Rating Acceleration for 

Veteran Entitlements Act of 2007’.) I think this is a very good Bill, I don’t understand why we have two Government agencies wasting tax payers dollars fighting 

over the disability of veterans, even when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs has certified the veteran as totally Disabled. 

I would hope that you could get this Bill H.R. 2943 out of Committee and back 

to the floor for a Vote; at last look on the internet this Bill has about 105 Cosponsors. I’m asking you as a veteran fighting with the Social Security system for Disability sense 2006 I had to finally hire a Lawyer to help me fight the system. 

f 

Harry Wanous 

Statement of James F. Allsup 

Chairman Rangel and Members of the Committee, thank you for considering my 

written testimony regarding the Social Security Administration’s growing disability 

claim backlog. 

My name is James Allsup and I am the founder, president and CEO of Allsup 

Inc., a Social Security Disability Insurance representation company that has helped 

more than 100,000 Americans with disabilities obtain Social Security disability benefits. For more than 30 years, I have experienced firsthand the challenges facing 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

201 

the SSDI system. I am a former SSA claims and field representative. I left the agency and founded Allsup 24 years ago because I wanted to help people with disabilities 

collect the insurance benefits they paid for. 

Our nation’s disability insurance system is bursting at the seams. As Commissioner Astrue himself has stated, people are dying while awaiting an SSDI decision. 

I am not going to go into detail with the appalling backlog numbers and SSA staffing problems because this Committee already knows that the SSDI system is in crisis. Instead, I want to offer solutions. 

Problems and Solutions 

As many have acknowledged, the core problem is that the SSA does not have the 

staff or the technology to process the exploding number of SSDI applications. Hiring 

additional administrative law judges is a step in the right direction, but it is similar 

to using a Band-Aid to fix a leaking dam. It is simply too little, too late. The agency 

and this Committee can effectively attack this crisis on two fronts: (1) Move more 

quickly to embrace modern technology to move claimants through the process faster, 

and, (2) Form professional relationships with third-party SSDI representatives. 

The SSA is moving forward on improving its technology initiatives. These include: 

• Appeals—This new Web-based appeals process has supplanted the traditional 

paper appeals form. Allsup uses iAppeals for all its filings and we have seen 

faster processing times and improved accuracy. We strongly support the agency’s proposal to require all claimants with representation to use iAppeals. 

• Electronic Records Express—Secure, online submission of health records 

and claims evidence. Allsup uses this system to electronically submit evidence 

in support of cases pending at the hearing level. A typical claim that reaches 

the hearing level consists of 700 to 800 pages of medical evidence, Activities of 

Daily Living reports, denial letters and a multitude of Social Security Administration application documents. Everyone, especially the agency, benefits when 

third-party representatives are allowed to submit evidence electronically. 

Other technological improvements would help reduce the overload of interactions 

between SSA and its claimants. An example would be giving third-party representatives access to claimant data to confirm application status. This would include forms 

that have been received, status of medical records and earnings information. 

Allsup supports these and other initiatives to streamline the SSDI process. There 

is, however, no substitute for the hands-on, personal service that experienced thirdparty representatives offer. Even with the aforementioned technological advances, 

the application process is still unwieldy, complex and bewildering to the typical applicant. They still need help to properly complete the forms and a professional to 

guide them through the process. 

I respectfully submit that the agency and this Committee should look for ways 

to increase awareness that professional assistance is available. Most SSDI applicants simply do not know help is available when they begin the process. By the time 

they reach the hearing level, about 84 percent of them have such help, but why not 

earlier in the process when it is so desperately needed and can reduce the number 

of people who end up in the hearing backlog? The effectiveness of third-party representatives has been proven in recent years. 

We screen potential claimants to help ensure they will meet SSDI criteria, accumulate the necessary medical evidence, and we work closely with applicants to ensure that all documents are properly completed in a timely manner; furthermore, 

we provide our customers valuable program education and set realistic expectations. 

Hundreds of thousands of worker-hours would be saved if every application processed by the SSA was professionally documented before it was submitted. 

We primarily work with claimants on the telephone and through the mail, so they 

do not have to travel to SSA field offices. We help pre-qualify claimants, we ensure 

eligibility and we develop accurate, comprehensive and factual records that save the 

agency many hours of claim development. 

When an on-the-record hearing decision is warranted, we prepare all the evidence, 

write the legal brief and submit everything as a package to a judge for a decision. 

Our process is so effective that more than 70 percent of our claims that reach the 

hearing level are approved on the record, which cuts months from the waiting process for the disabled individual. About 85 percent of our claimants are awarded benefits without ever having to speak to an SSA employee. Furthermore, our call-center 

employees respond to tens of thousands of client inquiries about the status of their 

claims and the SSDI claims process each month. These are calls that would otherwise be handled by an overworked SSA staff. 

Third-party representation would be even more effective if the SSA could electronically exchange claimant and case status information. The result would be fastmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

202 

er decisions, fewer backlogged claims, and certainly less personal and financial 

stress. In turn, the SSA could focus its overstretched resources on making application decisions. 

I emphasize that this proposal is not a step toward privatization. It is simply a 

strategic partnership between the government and industry to meet the demands 

of the people with disabilities, today and well into the future. Allsup is on the front 

lines of the disability backlog challenge. Everyday, we work with individuals and 

their families who are desperate because they have fallen on hard economic times 

because a serious injury or illness is preventing them or a family member from 

working. 

Chairman Rangel and Members of the Committee, 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 Linda Fullerton 

Members of the Committee: 

My name is Linda Fullerton, and I currently receive Social Security Disability Insurance/SSDI and Medicare. I have an inoperable blood clot and tumor in my brain, 

and several incurable autoimmune disorders, which have caused me to become permanently disabled. 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 personally suffered from 

the affects of the severe hearing backlogs (Buffalo NY OHA), due to the enormous 

waiting time I endured, and I am very discouraged to know that conditions are continuing to decline. 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. I lost all my 

resources, life savings, and pension money during the 11⁄2 year wait for my SSDI 

claim to be processed. I know first hand about the pain, financial, physical and emotional permanent devastation that the SSDI process can cause. 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. As a result, I will never be able to own a home, replace my lost financial resources, or replace my only means of transportation—a failing 11 year old car, 

and several other necessities that have now broken down. I currently live strictly 

on the inadequate, monthly SSDI check I receive, teetering on the brink of disaster. 

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. 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, and this totally unbearable, continuing source of stress and frustration, along with my worsening health conditions, is killing me. I did not ask for 

this fate and Congress and the SSA are totally responsible for it. My personal horror stories can be found on my websites at: 

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 

Please know that in spite of my horrible experience, I am committed to joining 

forces with Congress and the SSA to fix the problems with this disability benefits 

program. I am devoting whatever is left of my life to make sure that nobody else 

will ever have to endure the hell that I have been forced to live with every day, 

and I hope you will join me in that quest. I also ask that you forgive the harshness 

in the tone at times of the this testimony, but I feel it is the only way to fully, and 

accurately describe the severity of this issue. 

It is also important to note that I am also President/Co-Founder of the Social Security Disability Coalition, which is made up of thousands of Social Security Disability claimants and recipients from all over the nation, and our membership increases by the day. It was born out of my frustration with my own experience and 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

203 

the notion that others may be dealing with that same frustration. Our group is a 

very accurate reflection and microcosm of what is happening to millions of Social 

Security Disability applicants all over this nation. If you visit the Social Security 

Disability Coalition website, or the Social Security Disability Reform petition 

website: 

Social Security Disability Coalition—offering FREE information and support with a focus on SSD reform: 

http://groups.msn.com/SocialSecurityDisabilityCoalition 

Sign the Social Security Disability Reform Petition—read the horror stories from all over the nation: 

http://www.petitiononline.com/SSDC/petition.html 

You will read over five years worth of documented horror stories on our 

Messageboard (over 18,000 messages), and see thousands of signatures (over 7600) 

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. I must take 

this opportunity to tell you how very proud I am of all our members, many like myself, whose own lives have been devastated by a system that was set up to help 

them. In spite of that, they are using what very little time and energy they can 

muster due to their own disabilities, to try and help other disabled Americans survive the nightmare of applying for Social Security Disability benefits. There is no 

better example of the American spirit than these extraordinary people! 

This organization fills 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 connect 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 Claimants Face Death and Destruction When Applying for Benefits 

I must report with great sadness and disgust, that there is blood and destruction 

on the hands of both the Social Security Administration and Congress. Both have 

been systematically killing and devastating the lives of the most vulnerable citizens 

of this nation for decades. I firmly believe (while nobody from the SSA or Congress 

will ever admit this), the Social Security Disability 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 SSDI benefits! 

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). NOTE: 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) 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

204 

In 2007 there were 2,190,196 new applications for SSDI benefits, and as 

of March 2008 there have already been 563,769 new applications. 

As of April 2008 there are about 1,327,682 total pending cases and out of 

that number, 154,841 are veterans. 

Nationally as of March 2008, over 64% of disability cases were denied at 

the initial stage of the disability claims process and it took from 104.5–114 

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, 86.5% 

of cases were denied and the waiting time for this phase was an average 

of 88.8 days. 

As of April 2008 over 756,000 are waiting for hearings with an average 

wait time of 517 days 

As of April 2008 over 286,000 (38%) hearings have already been pending 

over a year, and there are only 951 Administrative law judges (ALJ’s), to 

hear all those cases, with an average of 738.02 cases pending per judge nationwide. 

Source: Social Security Administration Reports 

Two-thirds of those who appeal an initial rejection eventually win their 

cases (New York Times 12/10/07) 

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. 

MarketWatch: 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. Fifteen percent of all homeowners who had taken out a second 

or third mortgage cited medical expenses as a reason. 

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. Sixty-six percent 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. 

Other Important Disability Statistics: 

Nearly 1 in 2 (133 million) Americans live with a chronic condition. 

20.6% of the population, about 54 million people, have some level of disability 

9.9% (26 million people) have a severe disability 

Note: The sources for these statistics and even more information is listed 

here: 

http://www.mychronicillness.com/invisibleillness/statistics.htm 

This is totally unacceptable and there is absolutely no excuse for this! 

On behalf of the Social Security Disability Coalition, our response to Congress and the SSA for this situation is: 

For everyone of us that starves, becomes homeless or loses our healthcare during 

this process—we blame you! 

For everyone of us who files for bankruptcy during this process—we blame you! 

For the unfathomable stress and suffering we have inflicted upon us during this 

process—we blame you! 

For everyone of us who becomes more ill or worse yet dies during this process— 

we blame you! 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

205 

Horrendous Customer Service On The Part Of SSA And Congress 

A January 2007 Harris poll designed to evaluate the services provided by 13 Federal agencies, the public rated SSA at the bottom of the list and it was the only 

agency that received an overall negative evaluation. At one time in the recent past 

SSA was viewed by the public as one of the best Federal agencies in delivering service. Now after substantial staffing cuts, SSA is at the bottom of the public acceptance list. 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 are averaging about 850,000 visitors a week. Constituents visiting these local Field Offices 

continue to experience lengthy waiting times and the inability to obtain assistance 

via the telephone. 

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. This is outrageous when something this 

serious, and a matter of life and death, could be handled in such a poor manner. 

No other company or other government organization that I know of operates with 

such horrible results and turn around times. If any other corporation in this country 

did business like this, the majority of employees would be fired on the spot, and the 

company would be shut down within a year, yet these problems have been growing 

worse for decades. 

Congressional offices as part of their functions, contact Social Security on behalf 

their constituents going through the SSDI process all the time, so you must be fully 

aware of all the problems, and are the ones who can help correct many of them. 

I find it incredulous that almost nothing has been done to initiate reform of the system that is wreaking havoc on the disabled citizens of this nation. While the majority of Americans were shocked at the reaction of the Federal government in the 

aftermath of hurricane Katrina, I wasn’t surprised at all to see people dying in the 

streets. I shudder to think of how many more lives will be further ruined or lost, 

when the mentally and physically disabled victims of Katrina, other natural disasters, 9/11 victims who survived that day, but are now disabled and facing a similar 

fate, Veterans and the millions of other disabled Americans, encounter their next 

experience with the Federal government as they apply for their SSDI benefits. Little 

or nothing is heard about the service men and women who are injured and have 

to go through this nightmare to get their SSDI benefits, in addition to their struggles with the VA. Horrible treatment for those who give of their lives to protect our 

country. We are all being abused at the hands of our government, and to date our 

cries for help have continually been ignored. This apathetic, negligent attitude towards this crisis must be changed immediately. I am sad to say that you have failed 

us miserably, doing us a grave injustice in this area. It’s time that you speak out 

about the crimes being committed against your constituents, and create the legislation needed to correct decades of abuse and corruption of this Federal program. 

Keep in mind a country is only as strong as the citizens that live there, yet the current Social Security Disability program preys on the weak, and decimates the disabled population even further. 

Permanent Devastation Resulting From The SSDI Claims Process 

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. 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 relate their personal experiences with the SSDI claims process. 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. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

206 

Call For Open Congressional/SSA Disability Hearings 

I also find it deeply disturbing, and glaringly obvious, that at this latest hearing, 

and at past hearings over the last several years on this issue, that not one panelist/ 

witness selected to appear, has been a disabled American, and one who has actually 

experienced this nightmare first hand. Something is severely wrong with that picture! You continually choose the same panelists from the legal, disability advocate 

community etc when there is any representation at all. Unless you personally have 

experienced these problems yourself, you cannot even begin to fully understand how 

devastating they really are, and therefore are not fully qualified to be the only authority on these issues. It is my understanding that there are also those within the 

SSA itself, who have wanted to testify for several years, and until recently have also 

been shut out of these hearings as well. In my opinion, it seems that you don’t want 

to know what is really going on. If you don’t actually have to face us in person, we 

remain a bunch of SS numbers whose lives can be destroyed without guilt. We are 

in fact, your mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, children, grandparents, honorable 

veterans who have served this country, your friends and neighbors. 

How you get an accurate handle on this situation without all the facts and possible witnesses who wish to testify in person? I find it hard to believe that these 

hearings cannot be scheduled in such a way that more appropriate witnesses could 

be chosen to testify. As an actual disabled American, I ask again 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 results of hearings 

that were held in the past. I am more than willing to testify before Congress, to 

risk my very life for the opportunity, and I should be permitted to do so. 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 our members. Who better to give feedback at these hearings than those who are actually disabled themselves, and directly affected by the program’s inadequacies! A more concerted effort needs to be utilized when scheduling future hearings, factoring in 

enough time to allow panelists that better represent a wider cross section of disabled Americans, to testify in person. It seems to me if this is not done, that you 

are not getting a total reflection of the population affected, and are making decisions 

on inaccurate information, which can be very detrimental to those whom you have 

been elected to serve. 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 

SSDI system, that has major input and influence on the decision making process 

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 

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. 

There are three key reasons why the Social Security Disability program has been 

broken for decades, lack of proper funding for the SSA, apathy on the part of Congress and the SSA to fix the problems, and lack of oversight on all crucial parts 

of the program. 

SSA Commissioner Improperly Allocates ALJ’s For SS Disability Hearings 

Recently SSA Commissioner Michael Astrue asked Congress to approve extra 

funding in order to hire additional ALJ’s to try and reduce the severe SS Disability 

hearings backlogs across the country. While I agree that the SSA does need more 

funding, in fact way more than was actually finally given to them, there must be 

some major oversight by independent entities to ensure that these funds in fact are 

actually used/allocated appropriately. Here is a recent example that raises a red flag 

for such oversight and an immediate investigation. At the link below you will find 

a spreadsheet that shows the locations where the newly acquired ALJ announced 

by the SSA Commissioner have been allocated 

As of March 2008: 

It takes 669 days (nearly two years) for the average Western New Yorker to have 

their SSA case heard and processed in the Buffalo Hearing Office. This office is the 

worst in NY State for SS Disability hearing backlogs and out of 145 hearing offices 

nationwide, Buffalo ranks at 126, as one of the worst processing times in the country. 

It ranks at 111 out of 145 hearing offices, at 47%, for the number of SSA hearings 

SSA cases in the Buffalo Hearing Office have been pending for over a year, among 

the highest percentages in the country. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

207 

Administrative Law Judges in Buffalo have some of the largest caseloads in the 

country, with an average of 895 cases pending before each judge. 

Source: Compiled from various SSA reports March 2008 

Commissioner Astrue used the Argument that there was not enough office space 

in the Buffalo hearing office but that was immediately refuted by Congressman 

Brian Higgins: 

Congressman Higgins Says Lack of Space Is Poor Argument for Staffing Shortfalls 

in Local Social Security Disability Office—4/24/08 

http://higgins.house.gov/newsroom.asp?ARTICLE3116=7715 

‘‘If the problem is office space, I would be happy to find them available space in 

downtown Buffalo tomorrow,’’ Higgins added, pointing out that according to a 

Militello Realty report on downtown Buffalo property, as of January 779,228 square 

feet of Class A office space was vacant in the immediate downtown area. Congressman Higgins noted that staffing shortages aren’t exclusive to the Administrative 

Law Judges. Staffing at Western New York field offices have decreased substantially—by approximately 170 employees—over the past 25 years, even though the 

need for services has increased.’’ 

How many other states is this happening to? Where is the much needed 

oversight on this issue? 

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 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

208 

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). 

States Of Denial—Federalize State DDS Offices 

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. The only way to 

solve this inconsistency is to Federalize the State DDS’s and we are in agreement 

with AFGE on this. The first problem that must be addressed, and major cause for 

the huge backlog of disability hearing claims, is the overwhelming denial rate at the 

initial DDS level of the claims process. If claims were processed properly at this 

stage of the process there would be no need for the claimant to appeal to the ALJ 

hearing phase in the first place, and that would be a huge factor in reducing the 

hearing backlogs. It seems that this fact has been greatly ignored. 

The SSDI/SSI process is bogged down with tons of paperwork for both claimants 

and their treating physicians, and very little information is supplied by Social Security, as to the proper documentation needed to process a claim properly and swiftly. 

When you file a claim for benefits, you are not told that your illness must meet 

standards under the Disability Evaluation Under Social Security ‘‘Blue Book’’ listing 

of medical impairments, or about the Residual Functional Capacity standards that 

are used to determine how your disability prevents you from doing any sort of work 

in the national economy, or daily activities, when deciding whether or not you are 

disabled. 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. Many times when 

medical records are supplied by the claimant, they are lost or ignored. 

Excerpts from GAO Report GAO–04–656—SSA Disability Decisions: More Effort Needed To Assess Consistency of Disability Decisions—Washington—July 2004 which can 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 . . . SSA rulings are 

binding only on SSA adjudicators and do not have to be followed by the courts . . . 

Adjudicators currently follow a detailed set of policy and procedural guidelines, 

whereas ALJ’s rely directly on statutes, regulations, and rulings for guidance in 

making disability decisions . . . 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. . . 

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 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 

it off their desk when a case need 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 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

209 

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. 

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. 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. 

Improper CE/IME Medical Exams Ordered By Social Security Result In 

Higher Rate Of Denials/Appeals 

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, or make 

mistakes, even false statements about claimants. 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. Even 

though a claimant’s treating physicians are supposed to be given greater weight in 

decision making, this is often not the case. These doctors see you once for a few minutes, 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. It therefore results in a waste of 

time, money and energy, for both the claimants and the SSA, when the claimant 

ends up appealing a denial based on these improper SSA ordered examinations. 

Detrimental Regulations 

There are some very detrimental, regulations that SSDI applicants are subject to 

as well, and are a great shock to them. Under Federal law, there’s a five month 

benefit waiting period, and five months of back money withheld, which claimants 

will never see again. It was originally six months but Congress voted to reduce it 

to five. Apparently it is assumed that disabled Americans do not need that money. 

Studies have shown that most Americans have about two weeks of financial resources to live on. SSDI recipients must also wait another 24 months, in addition 

to the 5 month waiting period from disability date of eligibility (the date that SS 

determines that you were officially disabled) in order to qualify for Medicare benefits. Keep in mind that if you let any sort of health insurance policies lapse for too 

long, and don’t maintain continuous health coverage, you may have a very difficult 

time getting a new insurance carrier, since they may hold your poor health against 

you, and consider many things as ‘‘pre-existing conditions’’ so you may not be covered for those illnesses. Congress expects a population who can no longer work, to 

go without five months of retro pay, have no health insurance, and wait several 

months to several years to have their disability claims processed. In my state when 

a healthy person loses their job, provides the necessary documents and files for Unemployment Insurance, their payments automatically start within a few weeks. It 

is blatantly obvious that those who find this to be acceptable standards are totally 

out of touch with reality and have no regard for human life. 

Ticket To Work Program—Catch 22—Fear and Mistrust of the SSA 

According to SSA disability guidelines: Social Security pays only for total disability. No benefits are payable for partial disability or for short-term disability. You 

have a valid claim if you have been disabled or are expected to be disabled for 12 

consecutive months, or your condition will result in your death. Your condition must 

interfere with basic work-related activities for your claim to be considered. If your 

condition is severe but not at the same or equal level of severity as a medical condition on the list, then they must determine if it interferes with your ability to do 

the work you did previously. If it does not, your claim will be denied. If you cannot 

do the work you did in the past, the SSA looks to see if you are able to adjust to 

other work. They consider your medical conditions and your age, education, past 

work experience and any transferable skills you may have. If you cannot adjust to 

other work, your claim will be approved. If you can adjust to other work, your claim 

will be denied. Currently the SSA forces the disabled to go through years of abuse 

trying to prove that they can no longer work ANY job in the national economy due 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

210 

to the severity of their illnesses in order to be approved for benefits. The resulting 

devastation on their lives, often totally eliminates the possibility of them ever getting well enough to ever return to the workforce, even on a part time basis, in order 

to utilize the SS Ticket to Work program. Yet ironically once they are approved they 

are allowed to earn up to $900 and still receive benefits. Confusing to say the least. 

Then sometimes weeks after they are finally approved for SSD/SSI benefits, after 

their health and finances have been totally destroyed beyond repair, they receive 

a ‘‘Ticket To Work’’ packet in the mail, another waste of SSA funds. A cruel joke 

to say the least and it is no wonder that they fear utilization of the Ticket to Work 

Program, and distrust the Federal Government! The Ticket to Work Program is 

often viewed as a carrot and stick it to the disabled approach. I recommend in addition to the current Ticket to Work Program, funding for the creation of an Interim 

(transitional) SSDI disability program for those who are chronically ill, but still may 

be able to work a few hours a week/month. They would apply for interim disability 

benefits to start and for every month they could not work they would get a full 

check. For any full month or portion of a month that they could work they would 

be paid the difference or nothing based on the amount of the SSDI benefit they 

would earn by not working that month. They would be eligible for full Medicare benefits from the onset. When their illnesses progressed to a point that working is no 

longer an option, full SSDI benefits would automatically kick in. This would continue to increase benefits for the SSA trust fund, since these part time workers 

would still be contributing to the fund. 

Continuing Disability Review/CDR Process Must Be Changed 

Many people suffer from conditions acquired at birth or chronic conditions that 

have NO cures and over time these diseases grow progressively worse with no hope 

of recovery or ever returning to the workforce. The threat of possible benefits cut 

off, and stress of a review by Social Security again is very detrimental to a recipients health. This factor needs to be taken into consideration when reforming the 

CDR process. In those cases total elimination of the tedious medical component of 

CDR’s should be considered, only requiring verification of contact info, or a longer 

period of time between reviews such as 10–15 years rather then every 3–7 years, 

as is currently the case. This would save the SSA a great deal of time, money and 

paperwork which could then be used to get new claimants through the system faster. 

Eliminate Need For Proposed Third Party Claims/Paid Legal Representation 

First of all the SSDI claims process should be set up so there is very little need 

for cases to advance to the hearing and appeal stage since that is where the major 

backlog and wait time exists. I feel strongly that an SSDI claimant should not have 

to pay for legal representation to get benefits that they have already paid for with 

their taxes. I am also highly opposed to the possibility of a claimant having to pay 

a third party for assistance to file a claim at the onset. Congress must intervene 

immediately to prevent this from happening, and in fact change the law that the 

claimant has to pay for legal representation at all. This adds an additional financial 

burden to the claimant. The current SSDI claims process is set up to line the pockets of the legal system, as you are encouraged from the minute you apply for benefits to get a lawyer. The need of lawyers/reps to navigate the system and file claims, 

and the SSD cap on a lawyer’s retro commission is also a disincentive to expeditious 

claim processing, since purposely delaying the claims process will cause the cap to 

max out—more money to the lawyer/rep for dragging their feet adding another cost 

burden to claimants. In other words the system is structured so that it is in a lawyer’s best interest for your case to drag on since they get paid 25% of a claimant’s 

retro pay up to $5300—the longer it takes the more they get. From the horror stories I hear from other claimants, many attorneys are definitely taking advantage 

of that situation. The SSA should instead provide claimants with access to FREE 

resources that can help in the process of filing SSDI claims and keep the legal community out of it. 

Americans Most Sensitive Data in Jeopardy 

The following article discusses the SSA employee work at home situation. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

211 

Concern Over Federal Times Article: Arbitrator Tells SSA To Restore 

Telework, Negotiate Changes—Federal Times—Courtney Mabeus— 

4/16/08 

http://www.federaltimes.com/index.php?S=3482166 

I am very concerned with the increased possibility of identity theft if SSA employees are allowed to take work home because they are too overloaded on their jobs. 

Employees should never be allowed to take this sensitive data home for any reason. 

Sensitive data has already been compromised at the VA, and this should not be allowed to happen ever again, especially jeopardizing our most vulnerable citizens to 

this very real and stressful possibility. I have personally caught the SSA in some 

major security breaches already, and this practice will only make those incidents 

even more common. Every effort must be made to properly secure this most sensitive information for the American people. In order to properly protect citizen’s 

identities ALL sensitive data should only be able to be accessed on government secure systems at the job site only. This is obviously going to require more manpower 

and financial resources, and Congress must make sure that the SSA has every resource it needs to protect this data, at their disposal immediately. 

Influx Of Improper SS 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 SSDI guidelines, but are being forced to file 

SSDI claims by their private disability and state disability carriers or risk not being 

eligible for benefits under those programs. Recently there was an article on this 

issue in the NY Times which can be found here: 

Insurers Faulted As Overloading Social Security—NY Times—Mary Williams 

Walsh—4/1/08 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/business/01disabled.html 

Congress and the SSA needs to immediately look into this issue and this practice 

needs to be stopped immediately as this greatly adds to the disability backlog problem. 

Reinstate DCM 

Currently, the most crucial part of a disability claim, the medical portion, is reviewed by a state DDS caseworker/adjudicator and medical doctor on their staff who 

never sees you, and in most cases never even communicates with you at all. Then 

they make a critical life changing decision as to whether or not they feel you are 

disabled based on the information that you and your doctors have provided. It is 

absolutely necessary for a claimant to be able to communicate with the decision 

maker and to be able to provide updated information on their medical conditions, 

especially before a decision is made on a claim. It is common sense, that proper communication at the initial level, would definitely result in a reduction of appeals at 

all further levels of a disability claim. The high decision reversal rate at the hearing 

(ALJ) level is concrete proof of that. It is recommended that the Disability Claims 

Manager (DCM) pilot, where DCMs were responsible for making both the entitlement and disability decisions for initial disability claims, be reinstated, and eventually extended to the entire country. With proper staffing to allow for communication 

between decision maker and claimant, this would definitely result in time and cost 

savings, for both the SSA and the claimants if this were reinstated. 

Excerpts from GAO Report GAO–04–656—SSA Disability Decisions: More Effort Needed To Assess Consistency of Disability Decisions—Washington—July 2004 which can found at: 

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04656.pdf 

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. 

Changes/Proper Funding Necessary For SSA 

SSA should not have to compete each year for funding with the Departments of 

Labor, HHS and Education which are more publicized and often popular programs. 

As stated in the previous testimony provided by Witlold Skierwczynski—President— 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

212 

National Council Of Social Security Administration Field Operation Locals to this 

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 in- crease the SSA administrative budget by $240 million over the President’s budget 

request. 

Concern Regarding SSA’s Future Movement Away From Personalized Customer Service 

I totally disagree with the agency’s goal of eliminating an SSA employee to assist 

with the filing of a claim. I am very concerned about recent changes that emphasize 

the use of the internet for filing Social Security Disability claims. In fact I always 

urge our members to file in person rather than use the internet to file their disability claims. Many disabled Americans do not have access to the internet or their 

disabilities prevent them from using it properly. This can result in improper filing 

of a claim and delay or result in a denial of benefits. Since we encourage our members to provide as much medical information as possible to the SSA at the initial 

filing of their claim in order to speed up the process, it is impossible to provide this 

information if a claimant chooses to use the internet instead. I agree with previous 

testimony provided by Witlold Skierwczynski—President—National Council Of Social Security Administration Field Operation Locals to this Committee on 4/23/08, 

that here are several flaws with this proposed movement as follows: 

Programming flaws that do not correctly identify the ‘‘protected filing date/disability date of eligibility.’’ 

Identity and privacy concerns 

Incorrect payments 

High volume of errors, resulting in re-contacts. 

Creation of a new backlog at Social Security 

No review process of the public’s accuracy in completing applications 

I am very concerned about the loss of protected filing for internet claims and this 

should never be allowed. This could result in a major loss of much needed benefits 

which is not acceptable. Immediate efforts must be made to look into and correct 

this situation. 

Lag earnings must also continue to be properly developed so that a claimant’s 

wages can be easily added to the benefit computation at the initial interview and 

to make sure that proper payments are made to claimants right from the start. The 

encouragement of internet claims filing will make this almost impossible. This will 

cause a dramatic increase in improper payments, and unnecessary wasted time for 

both the claimants and SSA resources. 

I am totally against the implementation of the Accept Allegation of Month of Entitlement—Effective September 2008. The majority of the general public, and especially Americans with disabling conditions, are in no way knowledgeable enough to 

properly make this life altering decision without full disclosure and human assistance. This again will cause many unnecessary under and over payments and could 

result in permanent harm to disability claimants. 

The American people must always be given the option to file their claims using 

whatever method best suits their capabilities, and be ensured that the results will 

be accurate and in their best interest, no matter what option they choose. It must 

become mandatory that every internet claim submitted, must be fully reviewed and 

followed up by personal contact between an SSA employee and the claimant to ensure its total accuracy. Every effort must be made on the part of the SSA to continue provide personal customer service to the most vulnerable citizens of this nation. Anything less than that is unconscionable and totally unacceptable. 

Unacceptable Office Closures 

I am very discouraged by the number of SSA Office closures that I continually 

hear about. It is another example of poor customer service to the American people 

when the need for that service is only going to increase over time as the population 

ages. In fact a record number of offices were closed in 2007 and more closures are 

on the horizon. This puts more stress and strain on the health of disability applicants, and increased financial burden, when they have to travel several miles just 

to do business with Social Security. They often have to wait months for claim procmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

213 

essing appointments, and have to stand in lines for hours as well when they can 

get to the nearest SS office at all. There is no good excuse for this. Where is the 

oversight? 

I support the Social Security Customer Service Improvement Act, H.R. 5110, 

which was introduced by Representative Brian Higgins (D/NY), on January 24, 

2008, which contains procedures that the SSA Commissioner must follow before 

closing an office. I urge Congress to quickly pass this proposed legislation and pass 

additional legislation putting a moratorium on all office closures, before more disabled Americans are harmed and inconvenienced. 

I highly recommend that for the best, most efficient customer service to the American people, that ALL SSA operations be federalized, and that ALL phases of the 

Social Security Disability program, initial decisions, reconsiderations, hearings and 

appeals be moved to, and handled out, of the individual field offices throughout the 

country. I also recommend that more offices be opened to properly serve the public 

and to implement the changes properly. 

The Nightmare Continues—Excerpts From Social Security Administration: 

Inadequate Administrative Funding Contributes to the Disability 

Claims Backlog Crisis and Service Delivery Challenges—Prepared by 

the National Council of Social Security Management Associations 

(NCSSMA) March 13, 2008 

Due to budget constraints in recent years the amount of administrative funding 

the Social Security Administration (SSA) has received through the appropriations 

process has been significantly below the level necessary to keep up with the agency’s 

workloads. 

As a result, the backlog of unprocessed disability claims has grown to unprecedented levels and the system is now in a state of crisis. As the backlog grows, claimants face multi-year delays for hearings on their claims for benefits. The long wait 

for their day in court often leads to homelessness, lack of medical care and the loss 

of family and friends. And sadly, thousands die while waiting for a hearing. 

The effects of the backlog also extend throughout the agency. As SSA works to 

address the crisis, the agency is forced to divert its limited resources away from its 

day-to-day operations in Field Offices and Payment Processing Centers in order to 

try to manage the disability backlog. SSA disability claims and hearings continue 

to grow and hearing processing times are at record highs. If SSA does not receive 

funding above the President’s Budget Request for FY 2009, the hearings backlog 

will still be quite significant. 

The 800 Number had a busy rate of 7.5% in FY 2007 and handled about 59 million calls through agents and automation. At the same time over 60 million phone 

calls are directed to SSA Field Offices each year. In FY 2006, 51% of callers who 

tried to reach a Field Office received a busy signal. 

Staffing is at its lowest level in 35 years: Staffing at SSA will reach its lowest 

level since 1972, before SSI was established; yet, SSA today has about twice the 

number of beneficiaries it had in 1972. Since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006, SSA 

Field Offices have lost nearly 1,800 Claims Representatives and over 460 Service 

Representatives. The Teleservice Centers have lost about 560 Teleservice Representatives. In Fiscal Year 2008 Field Offices will not be able to adequately address staffing losses. The Disability Determination Services (DDSs) have lost over 1,200 positions since the beginning of Fiscal Year 2006, as a result their staffing levels are 

down nearly 8%. The Program Center that handles disability actions (Office of Disability Operations) has about 750,000 actions pending. This compares to 511,000 actions pending at the beginning of FY 2007. The average amount of time it takes 

for a Benefit Authorizer to process a Post Eligibility case they are assigned as of 

the end of February 2008 is 327 days. For Claims Authorizers it is 378 days. 

SSA’s workloads continue to rise: Congress continues to add to SSA’s workloads—for example, by assigning SSA responsibility for administering portions of 

Medicare Parts B and D, and conducting Social Security Number verifications and 

other immigration-related activities. However, SSA’s administrative funding has not 

kept pace with the agency’s increased responsibilities. 870,000 people on average 

visit SSA Field Offices each week. Since the beginning of the year, SSA Field Offices 

have been averaging about 950,000 visitors per week. In two separate weeks at the 

beginning of Calendar Year 2008, SSA offices set all time record highs for visitors. 

As of FY 2008 SSA has a backlog of 3,300 work years. This is expected to grow to 

8,100 work years in FY 2009. This backlog includes hearing cases, overpayments 

and underpayments on cases, check problems, earnings record corrections and recomputation of benefit, Medicare enrollment actions and returning phone messages. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

214 

In Closing On Behalf Of The Social Security Disability Coalition: 

The Social Security Disability program, which was originally set up to help us is 

currently failing miserably at this task, and in fact, in many cases it is causing devastating, irreversible harm to our health and financial wellbeing. We have contributed our hard earned money to this system hoping we would never need it until 

we were ready to retire. Where is the money going that has been mandatorily been 

taken from our paychecks every week? Why should we have to become homeless, 

bankrupt, starve, lose our healthcare coverage, suffer untold stress on top of our illnesses and even die trying to get our benefits? Why should we have to hire lawyers, 

wait years for hearings, go before administrative law judges and be treated like 

criminals on trial? Why have you ignored this crisis for so long, and done virtually 

nothing to reform it? We, the disabled citizens of this nation, have been forced to 

tackle a very daunting system and we challenge you to do the same, and correct 

these problems which have festered for decades. We ask that you please start taking 

care of the U.S. citizens living in this country first before the rest of the world, especially the sick and the dying, who trust you with their very lives and whom elected 

you into office. It is your duty as elected officials to serve all those that voted you 

into that office, and even those of us who didn’t. When the next election comes 

around we will not forget those who have forgotten us. We may be disabled but we 

still have, and will use our right to vote. They say you can judge a country by how 

it treats its most vulnerable citizens. Based on current statistics, the USA should 

hang its head in shame! It is our hope, and our right as American citizens, to expect 

that you will come together as elected officials, and finally act swiftly to do what 

is proper to protect and serve us. 

I not only have complaints, but also solutions, so I hope you will join me in my 

quest for total reform of this program. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

Sincerely, 

Linda Fullerton 

President/Co-Founder—Social Security Disability Coalition 

ssdcoalition@hotmail.com 

585–225–3019/585–235–8412 

PO Box 26378 

Rochester NY 14626 

Social Security Disability Coalition—offering FREE information and support with a focus on SSDI reform: 

http://groups.msn.com/Social Security Disability Coalition 

Sign the Social Security Disability Reform Petition—read the horror stories from all over the nation: 

http://www.petitiononline.com/SSDC/petition.html 

Please check out my website ‘‘A Bump On the Head’’ at: 

http://www.frontiernet.net/lindaf1/bump.html 

Social Security Disability Nightmare—It Could Happen To You! 

http://www.frontiernet.net/lindaf1/ 

SOCIALSECURITYDISABILITYNIGHTMARE.html 

CBS Evening New With Katie Couric—Disabled And Waiting—1/14/08 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/14/cbsnews—investigates/ 

main3712627.shtml 

f 

Statement of the 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 Rangel and all of the Committee Members 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. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

215 

Because NADR members are on the ‘‘front lines’’ helping persons with disabilities 

complete applications, claimants, gather and submit evidence, and attend Administrative Law Judge 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. The average processing 

time for cases at the hearing level is now 535 days. 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 

have to hang on for years, trying to balance family needs 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 is the story of a claimant represented by a NADR member: 

• 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. 

Other NADR members have reported the following examples of claimants who 

died while waiting for a hearing: 

• Chiquita filed her claim on January 25, 2006. She requested a hearing on April 

26, 2006. She died on March 22, 2007 while awaiting a hearing. 

• Barry filed his claim on March 3, 2005. He requested a hearing on June 6, 

2006. He died on April 27, 2007 while awaiting a hearing. 

• Alex filed his claim on September 13, 2006. He requested a hearing on December 29, 2007. He died on January 17, 2008 while awaiting a hearing. 

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 

the government reliable in this arena. 

Scope of Problem 

The hearing level backlog has increased dramatically from the FY 1999 level of 

311,968 cases, reaching 752,000 cases in FY 2008. 

Cases Pending 

2002: 468,262 requests for a hearing 

2007: 717,000 (300,000 requests over a year old). 

2008: 752,000 

We applaud Congress’ effort last year to address the backlog by appropriating, for 

the first time in 15 years, not just the President’s budget request, but an additional 

$148 million for SSA administrative expenses. While this is an important first step, 

sustained increases in funding over several years are needed to get the backlog 

under control. The President has requested an additional $600 million for SSA’s administrative expenses for FY 2009, bringing total funding to $10.327 billion. NADR 

believes that, at a minimum, SSA should be funded at the level of the President’s 

request plus $240 million for integrity work. We recommend that Congress provide 

SSA with $11 billion in FY 2009 in order 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. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

216 

NADR Supports Earlier Decisions by Expanding QDD, by Developing the Technology Necessary to Allow for Compassionate Allowances and by Prioritizing Backlog Cases for Quick Decisions 

NADR believes SSA can expedite movement through the backlog by targeting certain claims that can be resolved quickly—i.e. that have a high likelihood for ‘‘on the 

record’’ decisions. These same criteria can also be applied to SSA’s Quick Disability 

Determinations (QDD) and the Commissioner’s proposed new screening mechanism 

for Compassionate Allowances so that cases with a likely outcome of disability are 

processed fastest. Prioritizing of select cases can be started nationally, or in two or 

three demonstration projects that target areas with both ‘‘medium’’ and ‘‘high’’ backlogs. 

What are the cases that can be culled from initial applications and backlogs for 

speedy review? 

1. Claimants 55 and Older & Cases Involving Claimants with Limited Education 

(Age/Grid Issues) 

Currently SSA evaluates claims using criteria that include age and education. In 

a nutshell, the older a claimant (particularly those who attain age 55 and over) and 

the more limited the education that a claimant has, the greater the latitude allowed 

to obtain a favorable determination. When an individual achieves age 55, the grids 

will find a person disabled when they have a limited education, have only performed 

unskilled work in the past 15 years, and are limited in their ability to sit for six 

hours in an eight hour day and lift more than 10 pounds occasionally. There are 

certainly additional nuanced issues which must be considered in many cases but we 

believe that a cursory review, based upon a computer run of persons who are over 

age 55 or have attained age 55 during the application process, have a limited education, and are physically limited in their capacity to lift, sit and/or stand, may provide an expedited conclusion of disability with reduced processing time. If a person 

has turned age 55 while awaiting a hearing, this may further increase the potential 

of a favorable finding based upon the grids. 

2. Cases Denied Because the Claimant Did Not Meet the Requirement of 

Being Impaired for 12 Consecutive Months (Durational Denial) 

The definition of disability requires that a person cannot be found disabled unless 

their disabling condition has lasted or can be expected to last for 12 consecutive 

months, or that the condition is expected to result in their death (durational requirement). Oftentimes individuals with various impairments have applied for benefits within a month or two after they have discontinued work. Many are quickly 

found to be ‘‘not disabled,’’ as there is a projection or expectation that the impairment, while severe, will be resolved within the 12 month window. These cases, when 

appealed, are then placed into the queue with all other persons who have requested 

such. Since it typically takes nearly a year to have a case heard by an Administrative Law Judge, persons with durational denials may be easily screened after the 

12th month, given a quick review, and with minor updates of medical information, 

found either eligible or continue to wait for the hearing 

3. Back Cases with Multiple Spinal Surgical Interventions 

Severe back pain significantly limits an individual’s capacity to sustain substantial gainful activity. Persons who have had more than three back surgeries or have 

been diagnosed with ‘‘failed back syndrome’’ are oftentimes deemed eligible for disability due to this impairment. Yet, at the DDS levels, reviewers often do not adequately consider how pain, fatigue, and the side effects of pain medication impact 

an individual’s capacity to sustain work. In our experience, persons with a diagnosis 

of ‘‘failed back syndrome’’—those who have had several surgical interventions that 

have left the individual with significant pain, requiring regular utilization of pain 

medication or the need for additional surgery—will ultimately be found disabled. 

These cases make sense to prioritize. 

4. Claimants with a Significant History of Mental Health Impairments 

Individuals with severe mental health difficulties will oftentimes but periodically 

have problems caring for themselves effectively. They may meet Social Security’s 

‘‘C’’ criteria at times but due to the cyclical nature of their disease, not at others. 

Individuals with mental health impairments that wax and wane, that are usually 

widely recognized as disabled, such as those with repeated hospitalizations or those 

who have been institutionalized, can be quickly and efficiently identified as persons 

who have disabling mental health conditions. For example, a longitudinal history of 

the following would provide trusted markers that demonstrate serious mental 

health impairments: 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

217 

• Consistently low ‘‘Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF)’’ scores (rating criteria determined by a mental health professional in accordance with the DSM– 

IV); • Necessity to live in structured living environments; • Special education placements throughout their school career. 

SSA should pull and review from the backlog all cases that match these criteria. 

5. Improve Communication Between Representative and Administrative 

Law Judge 

There are periods of time subsequent to a file being reviewed or ‘‘pulled’’ that a 

claim sits, simply waiting for administrative action. During this time the issues that 

need clarification have been identified but not revealed to the representative. There 

is little to no communication from the Administrative Law Judge to the representative thus, when entering a hearing, the representative rarely knows the specific reasons that the ALJ believes the hearing was necessary. It would be valuable and 

highly cost effective if a statement of issues could be presented at the time the file 

is pulled or the hearing is scheduled so the representative can investigate and provide documentation that addresses the judge’s concerns. This may reduce or even 

eliminate the need for some hearings. As an example, oftentimes it only becomes 

evident when before the ALJ, that the only reason a hearing is being held is because 

earnings have been identified that are over substantial gainful activity and after the 

person says they are disabled. This can be anything from incorrect earnings—to insurance payments—to supported work. A brief discourse before the hearing asking 

for clarification of this issue may preclude the need for a hearing by the representative obtaining the necessary documentation. 

Conclusion 

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 Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty and the National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness. The 

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) serves as the legal arm 

of the national movement to prevent and end homelessness. The National Policy and 

Advocacy Council on Homelessness is a grassroots, anti-poverty organization. 

NLCHP and NPACH work with legal services attorneys, healthcare providers, case 

managers, and social service and housing agencies that assist homeless persons 

with disabilities who are seeking Supplemental Security Income (SSI) or Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits. 

Serving homeless people poses a tremendous challenge to the already overburdened SSI/SSDI applications process. However, relatively small regulatory changes 

combined with effective outreach would grant a lifeline to America’s most vulnerable 

citizens while freeing up SSA resources to focus on the remainder of the SSI/SSDI 

application backlog. 

Each year more than three million Americans experience homelessness. Many 

homeless people are likely eligible for SSI or SSDI. According to the largest and 

most rigorous Federal study of homelessness ever done in the U.S.—the National 

Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients (NSHAPC)—at least 32% of 

the overall homeless population had serious mental health problems and at least 

46% had one or more chronic health conditions, such as AIDS, cancer, or lost limbs. 

At present, the SSI/SSDI application process has largely failed these people. 

According to the NSHAPC data, only 11% of homeless people received SSI benefits, compared to 29% of formerly homeless people surveyed. Further, two local studies found that only 10–15% of homeless applicants were initially approved, compared to 37% of all applicants nationwide. Lengthy appeals, costly in time and dollars, follow initial denials. 

Barriers that prevent eligible homeless persons from receiving SSI and SSDI benefits include: (i) difficulty staying in contact with SSA; (ii) difficulty in retaining or 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

218 

researching necessary documents and information; (iii) lack of an approved, stateissued ID to allow access to SSA offices in Federal buildings or to prove identity, 

and (iv) difficulty obtaining medical records for purposes of documenting a disability. Even when medical records are available, they may not be from the limited 

types of healthcare professionals recognized as ‘‘acceptable medical sources’’ by SSA 

for the purpose of providing primary medical evidence of a disability. 

SSI and SSDI benefits provide more than a source of income for homeless people. 

In many states, receipt of SSI benefits provides access to medical care through the 

Medicaid program. In many communities, receipt of benefits also makes clients eligible for supportive housing, providing a permanent route out of homelessness. 

We believe that SSA has the authority to make regulatory changes and issue directives that could significantly address some or all of these barriers. Some SSA offices have implemented processes that have helped improve access for homeless people. However, these steps are incomplete, apply only in a few places and allow significant barriers to remain. 

An examination of these points shows that positive changes are possible. 

Barriers and Problems that Contribute to SSA Backlog 

Homeless applicants for SSI and/or SSDI face many bureaucratic barriers that are 

extraordinarily difficult to overcome. These barriers needlessly contribute to denials 

and lengthy appeals that continue while an individual remains living on the street 

without any source of income. 

Studies have shown that persons with disabilities who are homeless for long periods of time often consume disproportionate amounts of emergency medical services, 

law enforcement resources, and social service agency time and attention. 

Homeless applicants for SSI/SSDI also may have difficulty navigating the complex 

SSI/SSDI application process, resulting in incomplete or technically incorrect applications, filing repeatedly and failing to follow appeals processes in ways that allow 

accurate outcomes. Lack of an address also makes it difficult for SSA offices to follow-up with clients to obtain additional information. 

These injuries are compounded when the homeless applicant is left with no access 

to the services or housing that could help end homelessness for the individual and 

long-term homelessness for states and communities. The record is rife with stories 

of otherwise eligible SSI/SSDI applicants, faced with delays that may last from 1– 

3 years, simply succumbing to worsened or terminal health conditions. 

In short, the current process is a systemic and personal disaster—a disaster made 

all the worse because it is avoidable. 

Over the years, community providers, homeless advocates, and those focused specifically on assisting homeless individuals through the SSI/SSDI process have developed an intimate familiarity with the problems in the system and in so doing have 

identified an array of potential solutions. 

(1) SSI/SSDI application procedures fail to recognize unique needs of different target populations. The SSI/SSDI application process presumes that communication by mail is a sufficient means of notifying applicants of appointments, 

requests for information and their progress through the system. Homeless applicants along with those marginally or transiently housed are thus left unserved. 

Applicants are expected to provide comprehensive and complete non-medical or 

non-disability information as well as medical histories. But roughly half of SSI/SSDI 

applicants allege a mental impairment. This impairment by its very nature complicates the document collection and retention process. 

A few local programs have succeeded in addressing some of these barriers. A cooperative program between SSA and the Massachusetts’ Disability Determination 

Services ensures that homeless applications are ‘‘flagged’’ and referred to a special 

team that processes homeless applications. Creation of this special unit has resulted 

in increased approvals of homeless applications. 

Through demonstration projects such as the Baltimore SSI Outreach Project and 

the SSA funded HOPE grants, SSA recognized the need to provide greater assistance to homeless individuals. These demonstration projects have been successful in 

improving the quality of the applications submitted to SSA and improving results 

for applicants. Unfortunately, however, these programs’ processes have not been integrated nationally into SSA’s instructions to their field offices, and as a result of 

the end of the demonstration projects, funding has largely stopped for these community providers. What is needed is funding not for demonstration projects but rather 

for changed institutionalized processes. 

Recommendation: 

Require SSA to form partnerships and to establish flexible processes nationally 

for the populations applying for SSI/SSDI who require special assistance to navigate 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

219 

the process. Require SSA to work with State Disability Determination Services offices to establish teams that will specialize in serving the mixed populations of applicants who need additional help and services. These specialists could work collaboratively with community groups to ensure the kinds of collaboration needed to process claims efficiently and accurately on initial application. 

Require SSA to report housing status along with data already reported on the applicant population and outcomes (included in SSA homelessness plan and not yet 

done). 

(2) SSA offices are not able to maintain field representative staff, making 

it harder to reach homeless persons with disabilities. As the demand on SSA 

has increased and staffing has decreased, many SSA offices no longer have field representatives. These staff were able to go out in the community to assist the populations of individuals, such as homeless adults, to apply for benefits. In addition, 

these representatives often formed collaborative relationships with community providers who could assist with locating people and providing information. The reduction in field representative staffing has contributed to greater difficulty in processing claims for this very heterogeneous population. 

Recommendation: 

Restore hiring of field representatives to SSA offices. 

(3) Photo identification required to access Federal buildings prevents 

homeless persons from getting to the SSA office. Many homeless adults lack 

photo IDs needed to enter Federal buildings. Although the application process per 

se does not require a photo ID, accessing the SSA office often does. 

Recommendation: 

Federal buildings with SSA offices should establish procedures for acceptance of 

alternative ID, such as a letter of introduction from a shelter or community service 

provider. A process under which people without ID can be escorted from a building 

entrance to an SSA office within should be implemented. 

(4) Limits on communication with SSA other than by mail make it difficult to reach homeless applicants. As noted above, people without fixed address are not going to be served by the SSA policy of generally communicating by 

mail. But even for applicants who are willing to go to SSA offices (if they are allowed in), the reduced staffing in SSA offices means that staff are not readily available to answer questions. Waits to meet with staff in person are long. Rarely can 

one contact a claims representative by phone. As a general practice, applicants are 

not given the phone number for their claims representative. Rather, people are 

urged to contact a toll-free number at a different location where staff are often unfamiliar with the details of particular claims. Information provided through this service thus is often inaccurate. 

Because of this poor communication, homeless applicants often do not know how 

and when to follow up and frequently receive a technical denial because of their lack 

of follow-through. Without an advocate to assist with applications, many homeless 

adults simply cannot navigate the process. Tenacious homeless applicants will frequently re-apply over and over again but because of their reliance on incorrect information and the barriers described herein their efforts remain futile and simply 

serve to clog the system. 

Recommendation: 

Require local SSA offices to provide phone contact information for claims representatives to applicants whom they assist. Provide phone information on the SSA 

website for supervisors and managers in these offices. 

Staff the SSA local offices sufficiently so that long waits, communication only by 

mail can be avoided and so that partnerships with the community are fostered and 

established on an ongoing basis. 

(5) Documentation for non-medical criteria is difficult for homeless persons to obtain. The application process with SSA is dependent on an applicant’s 

ability to provide necessary documentation such as birth certificates, immigration 

papers, any and all documentation of any assets, etc. Most homeless adults do not 

have these papers and cannot afford even the minimal fees required to obtain copies 

of such papers. Once again, this leads to technical denials, which means wasted 

time on the part of the applicant and wasted time and resources of the SSA staff— 

waste that contributes to backlogs. 

Recommendation: 

Provide SSA with the ability to access birth certificates and other needed documents without cost to the applicant, especially for individuals in dire need such as 

homeless applicants. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

220 

(6) Cognitive impairments may make it more difficult for homeless persons 

to complete the application process. Homeless applicants often have serious 

mental health problems and other health issues that may impair their ability to 

think clearly and to provide clear and comprehensive medical information. Information that may exist is missed without anyone to ask for it and obtain it. Critical 

aspects of disability such as histories of trauma, histories of brain damage, and 

learning problems are often missed as the applicant is unaware or does not know 

how to describe such problems in a way that doesn’t feel demeaning or stigmatizing. 

Often, a person with these problems has simply adapted to them and, therefore, is 

not able to report them in a useful way for the disability determination process. 

Recommendation: 

Encourage SSA to develop a culture whereby the agency is part of a community 

network and is seen as receptive to suggestions and requests from those who are 

assisting applicants. 

Fully fund the low-cost programs that collaborate with SSA to help homeless applicants through the process. Outreach programs such as HOPE and the highly successful SOAR initiative have shown promise in developing procedures wherein case 

workers can help applicants assemble the requisite documentation and present the 

material in a form acceptable to DDS staff. SOAR trained sites have increased rates 

of initial approval for homeless applicants to an average of 62%. Technical denials 

and the need for appeals are reduced when homeless people are helped through the 

system and into housing. SSA also benefits as this most challenging segment of 

their client population is removed from the backlog. 

(7) Sporadic, incomplete, transient treatment histories make it difficult to 

obtain medical records. Many homeless applicants have not had consistent treatment for their medical problems. Emergency room visits are common; notes from 

these visits are cursory. Serious and ongoing health problems are treated on an 

acute basis only. Putting together a true picture of impact on functioning and ability 

to work is extraordinarily challenging and beyond the means of already overtaxed 

SSA staff. 

Many communities do not provide regular access to physicians and/or psychologists who are viewed as the only acceptable medical sources for diagnostic information for most health problems. Nurse practitioners, physicians’ assistants, and social 

workers are often the main providers of treatment and yet are considered collateral 

sources who cannot provide diagnoses. In most public care settings, individuals 

spend very little time with physicians. Yet, physicians are the professionals asked 

to provide comprehensive information about applicants. 

Recommendation: 

Expand the list of acceptable medical sources for applicants identified as homeless 

to include nurse practitioners, physicians’ assistants, and licensed clinical social 

workers. These are the staff who provide much of the care to uninsured individuals 

in physical health and mental health settings. In many rural settings, these are the 

only healthcare providers available to low-income and homeless people. 

(8) Reliance on consultative examinations results in underreporting of disabilities. In the absence of comprehensive medical histories from an acceptable 

medical source, consultative exams are scheduled with physicians and/or psychologists who contract with DDSs to complete such evaluations. Because notification for 

these appointments is by mail, homeless applicants often miss their examination. 

This lack of follow through has been identified as the principal cause of technical 

denials for homeless applicants. 

In addition, people who go to these evaluations often deny their mental health 

problems or do not recognize them as such and, therefore, do not discuss their impact. The examinations are often cursory. They are always costly. 

In some communities, access to a consultant is extraordinarily limited. For example, in parts of Montana, applicants must travel 70 miles to receive a consultative 

examination—clearly a challenge for homeless applicants. 

Recommendation: 

To reduce the need for consultative examinations, SSA should expand the list of 

acceptable medical sources for applicants identified as homeless to include nurse 

practitioners, physicians’ assistants, and licensed clinical social workers. SSA also 

should ensure current medical providers are contacted and all records obtained prior 

to scheduling a consultative exam. Most homeless applicants have complex histories 

that are unlikely to be adequately presented to a complete stranger in the brief 

amount of time allotted to a consultative examination. National licensing criteria 

could be established for this purpose with the support of both the newly eligible 

medical sources and traditional medical sources who would benefit from having 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

221 

those in need enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid programs rather than receiving 

costly uninsured care in emergency rooms. 

Additionally, SSA should encourage state Disability Determination Services to expand their consultative evaluators’ list to include programs and physicians that 

serve people who are homeless, e.g., Health Care for the Homeless clinics and Federally Qualified Health Centers. 

(9) ‘‘Everyone is denied two times and has to go to a hearing.’’ The high 

rates of denials of homeless applications leads many service providers to believe the 

process is futile and discourages some groups from assisting homeless clients to 

apply for SSI/SSDI benefits. Lack of awareness by SSA representatives of how 

homelessness impacts disabilities further exacerbates the problem. 

Recommendation: 

SSA should involve community service providers in the training of SSA claims 

representatives and DDS claims examiners about specialty issues and populations 

who are applicants. For example, homeless advocates or service providers should 

provide training on the demographics of homelessness, and the impact of homelessness on substance use and co-occurring disorders, HIV/AIDS, and developmental 

disabilities. 

(10) Lack of understanding of disability determination process by community service providers impairs their ability to assist homeless applicants in 

preparing applications. Despite SSA’s provision of ongoing training, many service 

providers are not knowledgeable about the requirements that a person must meet 

to be eligible for SSI/SSDI. Therefore, the information that SSA and the DDS need 

to process claims may not be provided to those agencies. For many social service 

agencies, translating the collection of information in a client’s case file into what 

SSA and DDS need can be daunting. 

Recommendation: 

As discussed above, SSA should be enabled to hire specialists to work collaboratively with community groups to ensure the kinds of collaboration needed to process claims efficiently and accurately on initial application. 

SSA should also form partnerships and establish flexible processes nationally for 

the populations applying for SSI/SSDI who require special assistance to navigate 

the process. 

Additionally, SSA should update their Plan on Homelessness, a document that 

has not been reviewed since 2002. The revised plan should include procedures for 

identifying and including key homeless agencies and their representatives in efforts 

to implement the updated and revised plan. 

(11) Inherent disconnect in the disability determination process between 

information required to make a disability determination and the information normally contained in medical records. In general, the information provided to make disability determinations is in the form of medical records. The purpose of medical records is to assess symptoms, provide a diagnosis, and prescribe 

treatment. Rarely do these records contain the functional impairment information 

that is part of the disability determination process, especially for people with mental 

impairments. Additional information is often needed to answer the questions in this 

process and may not be available without additional work on the part of community 

providers 

Recommendation: 

SSA should bring together a workgroup to develop strategies to address this inherent disconnect in the process. Such a workgroup should include direct service 

providers, community clinicians, professional school representatives (e.g., medical 

and other graduate schools), medical records department representatives and others 

who are involved in compiling the information needed to address the SSA disability 

criteria. 

The solutions outlined here will take time, effort and in many cases additional 

Federal investments. However, the payoff in reducing the SSI/SSDI backlog and the 

ensuing human toll will ultimately reduce costs in cities and states that currently 

must cope with people who are eligible SSI/SSDI applicants living without assistance for their disabling conditions. Homeless people with disabling conditions consume an enormous and disproportionate share of local healthcare and public safety 

resources. 

Beyond the fiscal argument lies the moral imperative of providing concrete steps 

to end homelessness in the United States. Any examination of reforms to the SSI/ 

SSDI application process should include improvements to address the barriers presented above. As advocates working to eliminate homelessness in America we are 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

222 

committed to working with Congress and all relevant agencies to refine and implement these ideas. 

f 

Statement of the Service Employees International Union 

Dear Chairman Rangel and Members of the Committee: On behalf of our Members, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 1000 urges the esteemed Members of the House Ways and Means Committee to increase funding to 

reduce the backlog in disability claims that are determined at the Disability Determination Services Division (DDSD) operating under the Social Security Administration. While we commend Commissioner Astrue’s hiring of 144 Administrative Law 

Judges at the hearings level, resources need to be directed to the earlier levels of 

the determinations process. Commissioner Michael Astrue admits that they are 

working with the lowest staffing levels in over thirty years. To process claims effectively with a decreased number of staff is especially untenable in California, where 

we process 10 percent of the nation’s claims. Thus, the workloads at the branches 

of the Disability Determinations Service Division (DDSD) are at an unprecedented 

high, and the department expects another increase in disability claims as baby 

boomers begin to reach retirement and disability-prone age. SEIU Local 1000 represents over 1,400 Disability Determination Service workers in 8 offices across the 

state. Our members in these offices deeply believe in the service they provide. They 

know that receiving SSI and SSDI is often a life or death situation. Yet the Department continues to focus on the number of closures of cases, not quality. On more 

than one occasion, analysts have been told by their managers that they ‘‘are not social workers,’’ and that ‘‘the priority is closing cases.’’ Instead, the workers believe, 

the priority should be accurate and compassionate disability determinations. Nor do 

they have the tools to process claims efficiently. In California, for example, they 

have fewer physicians to refer claimants to than they did in the past. Program technicians in several DDSD branches statewide have informed us of having to schedule 

appointments for people into the next year. They also don’t have enough in-house 

medical consultants to refer psychiatric cases to. As a result, cases are farmed out 

to other states, thereby lengthening the processing time of cases. Furthermore, the 

fairly recent implementation of the electronic claims processing system (eDIB) is 

grossly unpredictable and unreliable. Many support staff haven’t been given the 

equipment necessary to complete their work in a paperless environment (i.e., scanners, computer screens, etc). A report generated by the California DDSD showed 

that between May 3 and September 17 of this year, the system incurred slow downs, 

complete shut downs, and other problems totaling hundreds of hours. Yet, analysts 

are forced by their managers to process the same amount of cases they would in 

a regular eight hour day. The caseload is so high at the California DDSD offices 

that an alarming number DDSD workers have gone on leave due to stress, work 

related injuries or have had nervous breakdowns. Yet when a worker is out sick, 

it is the Department’s policy to still assign those person cases, which then go untouched for days. The policy is absurd because it is impossible for individuals out 

on sick leave to physically process claims and to ask those employees recovering 

from an illness to perform work assigned to them during their leave. DDSD workers 

speak to claimants on a daily basis. They talk to claimants—veterans, the elderly, 

and the parents of disabled children who struggle to make ends meet while they 

wait for a decision on their claim. We’ve seen DDSD workers work through their 

lunch hours and breaks. We’ve seen them come in early and leave late because they 

took the time to carefully review people’s claims. Yet, they are facing pressure to 

close cases as quickly as possible. The SSA plans to hire more appeals judges, but 

they also need to hire more field office staff. Increased staff in the field offices could 

reduce the number of appealed decisions reversed. We urge you to increase funding 

to California to address the disability backlog at the early stages of the disability 

process and protect thousands of individuals who have no other means of income. 

If you have any questions about the disability backlog in California or this letter, 

please contact Joanna Gin at (916) 554–1231. Thank you. 

f 

Statement of the American Civil Liberties Union 

The American Civil Liberties Union (‘‘ACLU’’) commends the House Ways and 

Means Committee (‘‘Committee’’) for holding a hearing on the Backlog of Social Security Disability Claims and appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony for the 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

223 

1See White, et al., v. Mathews, 434 F.Supp. 1252 (D. Conn. 1977), aff’d 559 F.2d 852 (2d Cir. 

1977), cert. denied 435 U.S. 908; Caswell, et al. v. Califano, 435 F Supp 127 (D. Me. 1977), aff’d 

(1st Cir.) 583 F. 2d 9. 2 Rivera v. Apfel, 99 F.Supp.2d 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), vac’t on other grounds, No. 00–6241, 2000 

WL 33647061 (2d Cir. Nov 14, 2000) (citing Day, 467 U.S. at 119 n. 33, 104 S.Ct. 2249). 3 Respondent Day was forced to wait 340 days between his hearing request and reconsideration determination; respondent Maurais waited 280 days between his hearing request and reconsideration determination. See Day, 467 U.S. at 107 nn. 6–7. 4See Id. 467 U.S. at 111 & n. 15. ‘‘[T]he District Court’s declaratory judgment that the plaintiff class is entitled to relief is not at issue.’’ Id. at 120, (Marshall, J., dissenting). See also, 

Barnett v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 17, 22 (2d Cir. 1986) (‘‘The [Supreme] Court stated that the Secretary did not challenge the district court’s determination that hearings must be held in a reasonable time or that the delays encountered by plaintiffs violated that requirement.’’). 5Telecommunications Research and Action Ctr., et al. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70, 80 (citing with approval Blankenship v. Secretary of HEW, 587 F.2d 329 (6th Cir. 1978). 

record. The current Social Security disability claims backlog is both unreasonable 

and violates due process. At a time when the Social Security Administration (‘‘SSA’’) 

is struggling to fulfill one of its principal functions of administering disability 

claims, Congress is now seriously considering imposing a new radical duty on SSA— 

the checking and verification of all workers in the U.S. Two bills pending in the 

House of Representatives—Secure America Through Enforcement and Verification 

Act of 2007 (‘‘SAVE’’ Act, H.R. 4088) and the New Employee Verification Act of 2008 

(H.R. 5515)—would impose a mandatory electronic employment verification system 

(‘‘EEVS’’) on all employers and would place that verification duty squarely on the 

SSA. There is no doubt that the imposition of such a sweeping national mandate 

would exacerbate the already unreasonable delays in processing claims for Social 

Security disability benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 401, et seq., and the Supplemental Security Income Program, Title XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381, et seq. While the ACLU has serious privacy, 

due process, and civil rights concerns with these proposals, we urge the Committee 

to reject any type of mandatory EEVS proposal primarily in order to ensure that 

the SSA can focus on performing its historic and critical function of processing disability claims in a timely and fair manner. 

The ACLU is a nonpartisan public interest organization dedicated to protecting 

the constitutional rights of individuals. The ACLU consists of more than half a million members, countless activists and supporters, several national projects, and 53 

affiliates nationwide. The ACLU has been active in protecting the rights of people 

with disabilities for over 35 years. At the dawn of the disability rights movement 

the ACLU challenged the institutionalization of people with mental illness in cases 

in Alabama (Wyatt v. Rodgers, Wyatt v. Stickney), New York (Willowbrook State 

School on Staten Island, Index No. 72 Civ. 356, 357 (JRB) and Florida (O’Connor 

v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975)). In recent years the ACLU has participated in 

landmark litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘‘ADA’’) including 

Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998); Sutton v. United Airlines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 

(1999); Chevron, USA, Inc. v. Echazabal, 122 S. Ct. 2045 (2002). The ACLU has also 

played a national leadership role in drafting and negotiating the ADA of 1990 and 

the ADA Restoration Act of 2007. 

Delays in processing and deciding Social Security disability claims have 

been held to violate the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and the Administrative Procedures Act (‘‘APA’’), 5 U.S.C. § 706(1).1 Although the Supreme Court has rejected ‘‘the imposition of mandatory deadlines on agency adjudication of disputed disability claims,’’ Heckler v. Day, 467 U.S. 104, 

119 (1984) and prevented courts from imposing class-wide mandatory deadlines, 

courts retain other traditional equitable powers where delay is unreasonable and 

‘‘where, in the particular case, the court finds that the interest of justice so 

require[s].’’ 2 As a general matter, courts have not definitively determined what 

length of time constitutes ‘‘unreasonable delay.’’ However, the Supreme Court in 

Day left standing the undisputed trial court finding that the delays suffered by the 

named respondents were unreasonable,3 which was not disputed by the Federal government.4 In analyzing claims of unreasonable delay under the APA, the courts 

have noted that ‘‘delays that might be reasonable in the sphere of economic regulation are less tolerable when human health and welfare are at stake,’’ and Social Security disability claims clearly involve ‘‘human health and welfare.’’ 5

The current delays in Social Security disability hearings and determinations are 

clearly unreasonable. The SSA’s ‘‘data as of the end of January 2008 indicate that 

the number of cases waiting for a hearing decision was 751,767, leading to average 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

224 

6The Disability Backlog at the Social Security Administration, Before the H. Comm. on Appropriations, Subcomm. on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, 

110th Cong., 2d Sess. (2008) (statement of Patrick P. O’Carroll, Jr., Inspector General, SSA), 

February 28, 2008. Available at http://www.ssa.gov/oig/communications/testimonylspeeches/ 

02282008testimony.htm. 7 United States Government Accountability Office, Social Security Disability, Better Planning, 

Management, and Evaluation Could Help Address Backlogs at 3 (December 2007). (‘‘GAO Management Report’’.) Available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0840.pdf. 8 Id. at 14. 9 Id. 

10The Disability Backlog at the Social Security Administration, Before the H. Committee on 

Appropriations, Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related 

Agencies, 110th Cong., 2d Sess. (2008) (statement of Richard Warsinskey, National Council of 

Social Security Management Associations, Inc.) Feb. 8, 2008. Available at http:// 

socsecperspectives.blogspot.com/2008/02/social-security-advocacy-group-written.html. 

waiting times for FY 2008 of 499 days.’’ 6 ‘‘In fiscal year 2006, 30 percent of [disability] claims processed at the hearings stage alone, took 600 days or more.’’ 7 Between 2000 and 2006, Social Security disability claims processing times for hearing 

and decisions nearly doubled.8 These delays are undoubtedly unreasonable and infringe on disability claimants’ due process rights. According to a Governmental Accountability Office Report published in December 2007, approximately 60 million 

phone calls are placed to SSA Field Offices each year, and over half of these callers 

receive a busy signal.9 The SSA’s staffing is at its lowest level since 1972. Despite 

the shortage of personnel, the SSA is facing an extremely heavy workload with the 

recently added duties of processing Medicare Part D and prescription drug claims, 

as well as processing retirement claims for the baby boomer generation now hitting 

retirement age. Social Security retirement benefits claims are expected to increase 

by 13 million over the next decade.10 As the SSA struggles to administer its primary 

duties of processing retirement and disability claims, Congress is now considering 

heaping yet another duty on the SSA—the verification of all workers in the U.S. 

II. A Recipe for Exacerbating the Social Security Disability Processing 

Backlogs—Adding Mandatory Electronic Employment Verification to 

SSA’s Mandate 

Two bills (H.R. 4088, H.R. 5515) introduced in this Congress would impose a mandatory electronic employment verification system (‘‘EEVS’’) on all employers in the 

U.S. Both mandatory EEVS bills propose that the SSA would play the critical function of checking and verifying work authorization for all workers in the U.S. This 

massive overhaul calls for sweeping changes to SSA’s historic functions of processing disability and retirement benefits claims. The SSA has never performed the 

complicated task of verifying people’s immigration status. The ACLU urges Congress to reject any type of mandatory EEVS proposal, in order to ensure that people 

with disabilities are not further harmed by the already unreasonable delays in Social Security disability claims processing. 

In addition to having to screen everyone in the U.S. for work authorization, the 

SSA would be tasked with responding to the majority of erroneous EEVS findings, 

which would include fielding telephone calls and responding to in-person queries at 

SSA Field Offices. The SSA has testified numerous times before Congress that approximately 10 percent of the 240 million Wage and Tax Statements (W–2 forms) 

received annually by SSA do not match the names and Social Security numbers in 

SSA’s records. According to the SSA’s Office of Inspector General, the Social Security database has a 4.1 percent error rate. The vast majority of errors involve U.S. 

citizens. The mandatory EEVS proposal contained in the SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) 

would strip workers of Social Security credit for their earnings if they work more 

than one job during a year—unless they visit a SSA field office to prove with documentation that they, in fact, worked two jobs. This provision will apply to anyone 

who works more than one job, who changes jobs, or whose employer changes ownership in a calendar year. 

By its own estimates, the SSA calculates that making EEVS mandatory would result in an additional 3.6 million visits or telephone calls to SSA field offices per 

year, which would result in 2,000 to 3,000 more work years for the SSA. Considering that currently over half of all telephone calls placed to SSA field offices do 

not get answered, moving to a mandatory EEVS regime would result in a practical 

shutdown of SSA field offices as SSA is swarmed by irate workers who are desperate to fix their Social Security records in order to work. 

Furthermore, in April 2008 the Congressional Budget Office released a score report for the SAVE Act (H.R. 4088) and estimated that the SAVE Act would decrease 

Social Security trust fund revenue by more than $22 billion over 10 years by inmmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

225 

creasing increase the number of employers that will pay workers in the cash economy, outside of the tax system. 

III. Mandatory Electronic Employment Verification Poses Serious Privacy, 

Due Process, and Civil Rights Concerns. 

In addition to crippling the SSA’s ability to process disability claims, a mandatory 

employment verification system raises serious privacy, due process, and civil rights 

concerns. A mandatory EEVS would require the creation of a new data-exchange 

system between the SSA and the Department of Homeland Security (‘‘DHS’’). SSA 

would be required to share data with DHS based on discrepancies in SSA’s database 

that have nothing to do with immigration status. According to SSA, reasons for errors in its database include clerical errors made by employers in completing their 

W–2’s; the fact that workers might have used one name convention (such as a hyphenated name or multiple surnames) when applying for a Social Security card and 

a different one when applying for a job; or name changes due to marriage, divorce, 

religious conversion, or other reasons. The SSA database does not contain complete 

information about workers’ immigration status, and the limited immigration status 

information that does exist in the database is not automatically updated when a 

worker’s immigration status or work authorization status changes. 

According to the Office of the Inspector General at SSA, by conservative estimates, at least 3.3 million non-citizen records in the SSA database contain incorrect 

citizenship status codes. A mandatory EEVS regime would result in the SSA erroneously divulging the private information of U.S. citizens (including their Social Security numbers) to the DHS because SSA is unable to accurately identify an individual’s citizenship status via its databases. And the DHS has proven that it cannot 

be trusted with private information. The House Oversight and Government Reform 

Committee gave a ‘‘D’’ to the DHS in computer security for 2006 (up from an ‘‘F’’ 

for the previous three years). The DHS’s failure to comply with Federal Information 

Security and Management Act standards since its inception demonstrates that it 

cannot be relied upon to make significant improvements in this area, which translates down the road into workers’ private information being left vulnerable to hackers and other cyber-threats. 

Furthermore, the information-sharing provisions set forth in both H.R. 4088 and 

H.R. 5515 do not require independent review, monitoring of disclosure, privacy protections, notice to workers that their private information or records have been disclosed, or recourse if overbroad information is sought or misused. 

Finally, moving to a mandatory EEVS would subject many lawful workers to illegal employment discrimination on the basis of race and/or national origin. Some employers facing a mandate of verifying all workers will fire workers or refrain from 

hiring candidates on the basis of their race, surname, accent, or other proxies for 

unlawful discrimination. 

The ACLU appreciates the opportunity to submit this written statement and 

urges the Committee to reject imposing the new radical duty of mandatory electronic employment verification on the SSA. 

f 

Statement of the Federal Managers Association 

Chairman Rangel, Ranking Member McCrery and Members of the House Ways 

and Means Committee: 

On behalf of the Federal Managers Association (FMA) and the nearly 1,000 managers in the Social Security Administration’s Office of Disability Adjudication and 

Review (ODAR), please allow us to take a moment and thank you for this opportunity to present our views before the Committee. As Federal managers, we are 

committed to carrying out the mission of our agency in the most efficient and cost 

effective manner while providing those necessary services to millions of Americans. 

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 supervisors 

in the Department of Defense and has since branched out to include some 35 different Federal departments and agencies including many managers and supervisors 

within the Social Security Administration (SSA). 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. FMA 

members and their colleagues in the SSA Office of Disability Adjudication and Review are responsible for ensuring the success of the administration of Social Secummaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

226 

rity’s disability determination process and in 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. Over 7 million low-income Americans 

depend on the agency’s Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program to stay afloat 

in a cost-inflating world, and nearly 7.2 million disabled Americans receive benefit 

payments through Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). At the February 28, 

2008 hearing, Commissioner Astrue testified that SSA’s productivity has increased 

over 15% 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 currently exists a backlog of over 757,000 requests for a hearing. It already takes over 500 days 

to process a typical request for hearing and these delays 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 six years, that number increased to over 

750,000, despite the fact that dispositions are at record levels. Although clericals in 

hearing offices prepared 472,168 cases in FY07, claimants submitted almost 557,970 

new requests during the same period. As such, the backlog of files simply awaiting 

preparation for review by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) at the close of January 2008 totaled 442,399 cases; an increase of 3,116 cases since the beginning of fiscal year 2007. Unless something is done to reverse this trend, the backlog could realistically reach one million by 2013 with the aging Baby Boom generation. 

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. We are here to confirm what you’ve heard several times before— 

that the ongoing lack of adequate staffing levels and resources have contributed to 

these backlogs. If these inadequacies continue, clearing the backlogs will be impossible and service delivery will continue to deteriorate. 

We at FMA appreciate the attention the Committee is placing on examining the 

reasons for the backlog and addressing remedies to the problem. ODAR began fiscal 

year 2008 with 419,752 pending cases awaiting preparation for a hearing. In all 

likelihood, those cases will realistically wait at least one year before any action is 

even initiated to prepare the case for review and hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge. In January, processing times across the nation ranged from a low 

of 343 days in the Boston region to a high of 649 days in the Chicago region. 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. A work year is approximately 250 work days, 

yielding a reasonable expectation that an ALJ can produce an estimated average of 

550 dispositions a year given the current staffing limitations. At the end of January 

2007, SSA employed 1,088 ALJs, resulting in a best case scenario of 557,150 dispositions for FY07, which is about the same number of new cases filed in a given year. 

Earlier this year, hiring letters went out to 144 of the 175 administrative law 

judges SSA plans to employ this fiscal year. Already 136 judges have accepted. A 

total of 175 ALJs could translate into an additional 82,500 dispositions, but only if 

adequate staff is available to prepare the cases for review. 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—the only solution 

to reducing the backlog. 

Undoubtedly, adequate clerical support is necessary to prepare cases for hearing. 

As it stands, hearing offices do not even have the staff to accommodate the current 

judges, let alone enough staff to process the nearly new 47,000 cases the Office of 

Disability Adjudication and Review receives each month. If receipts remained flat, 

the backlog will remain at over 700,000 cases, almost one-third of which are over 

365 days old. At the beginning of FY07, ODAR had over 63,000 cases which were 

over 1,000 days old; a number which is both unacceptable to the agency as well as 

the American people it serves. Commissioner Astrue identified these cases as 

ODAR’s number one priority and this backlog has since been eliminated. FMA applauds the Commissioner for his efforts; however, the 900 day old cases are now approaching this milestone. Currently, just fewer than 54,000 cases will be over 900 

days old by the close of FY08. We are committed to working with the Commissioner 

as he tackles this challenge. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

227 

With the aging Baby Boom population, it is reasonable to assume that receipts 

will continue to out-pace dispositions. 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 should be 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 an estimated 500 days. 

The existing staff must make room for the new cases as they attempt to address 

the backlog. 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. By following in his predecessor’s footsteps, Commissioner Astrue will encounter 

the same problems—no matter how many new judges come on board, without clerical staff to prepare cases for them, the backlog cannot be addressed. 

As previously stated, there is currently insufficient support staff to ensure optimal 

ALJ productivity and to handle the backlog. The accepted staff to ALJ ratio has 

been four to 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. Management 

and administrative employees should not be included in these figures, as they are 

not the employees performing the production work on hearing requests. And, of 

course, staffing shortfalls cannot be remedied without adequate funding. 

The solutions to the backlog problem are simply adequate staffing levels and timely budgets which will allow us to address the pending cases. As of last month, the 

backlog was at 757,221 requests for a hearing. However, it is worth noting that the 

agency can reasonably process 400,000 cases at any given time. As such, the actual 

‘‘backlog’’ is around 350,000 cases. As noted earlier, a trained, productive ALJ, with 

adequate support staff, should be able to produce about 550 dispositions in a given 

year. Approximately 1,000 additional ALJs and 5,000 additional support staff would 

allow ODAR to work down the backlog in one year while providing timely processing 

of new cases as they arrive. We at FMA recognize that these numbers present a 

large funding challenge for Congress. 

To enable SSA to meet the goals set forth in Commissioner Astrue’s testimony before your Subcommittee on February 28, 2008, Congress must approve a sufficient 

level of funding for the agency. The Continuing Resolution (CR) which was signed 

into law in March 2007 was severely inadequate to address both the staffing and 

backlog problem at SSA for fiscal year 2007, despite the meager increase SSA received above the fiscal year 2006 appropriation. Since 2001, Congress has appropriated, on average, $180 million less than the President has requested each year. 

The dollar value of this differential is equivalent to processing an additional 177,000 

initial claims and 454,000 hearings. Over the last ten years (FY98—FY07), Congress 

has 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 is allowing the agency to hire the additional 175 

ALJs. 

The President requested $10.327 billion for SSA’s administrative expenses in 

FY09, only $100 million below Commissioner Astrue’s request and six percent more 

than Congress appropriated this fiscal year. Furthermore, the House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 312) provided for an additional $240 million for SSA’s administrative expenses. We applaud these efforts. 

To remedy the unprecedented backlog situation, Congress should at a minimum 

pass the President’s 2009 budget request of $10.327 billion for SSA’s Limitation on 

Administrative Expenses account. Under his budget, the agency would be able to 

process 85,000 more hearings in FY09 than in FY08. In FY06 and FY07, SSA replaced one worker for every three that retired. The President’s budget will allow for 

a 1 replacement ratio. 

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. SSA officials estimate that more than 40% of its 65,000 employees will retire by 2014. Reversing this 

trend is a necessary step to reducing the backlog. 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB

228 

While the President’s budget request for FY09 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. 

Æ 

mmaher on PROD1PC69 with $$_JOB