Dispatches from Camp: Updates from the CEO

David Camp, NOSSCR CEO and General Counsel

We are beginning the process of electing representatives in all Circuits this summer except for the the 7th and 9th. Circuit Representatives serve two-year terms, so not all Circuits have an election each year. For more detail, please review our bylaws on our website.

To be eligible to be elected a member of the Board of Directors, a candidate must have been a member of NOSSCR for not less than two consecutive years immediately prior to the time his or her name is placed in nomination. Our Nominations and Elections Committee will review that timing and additional information provided by or about possible candidates to determine suitability to stand for election to the Board. For more detail, review this page (scroll to the bottom) which lists positive and negative factors to be considered.

The election will be for seats based on our membership census to be conducted on June 1, but we anticipate that this election will be for one seat in each of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 10th, and 11th Circuits. Board members serve two-year terms, starting with the fall meeting.

If you would like to have yourself or another NOSSCR member considered by the Nominations and Elections Committee as a candidate for election to the Board, please complete this Candidate Statement form. To be considered for this election cycle, we must receive your submission by June 13, 2025. However, NOSSCR now accepts candidate proposals on a rolling basis, whether for the next available Circuit Representative election or for the Board’s consideration for at-large or vacant seats. You can email nosscr@nosscr.org or call us if you need to submit a Candidate Statement by other means. There is no self-nominating petition.

The Nominations and Elections Committee’s list of approved nominees will be communicated late June or early July to NOSSCR members eligible to vote. On July 21, 2025, ballots will be emailed, providing access to Candidate Statements. We are using our longstanding secure online provider, Simply Voting, so please be aware that ballots may originate from “NOSSCR@simplyvoting.com.” You will have access to the ballots and voting through a link provided to you in your email.

The results will be announced in an online membership meeting in either August or September (posted on our website’s calendar), and newly elected Circuit Representatives will join the board at the next board meeting.

If you need additional information, please do not hesitate to contact nosscr@nosscr.org.

President’s Corner

Paul Burkhalter, NOSSCR President

Who is David Camp – NOSSCR CEO

When I joined the NOSSCR Board in 2019, I didn’t know David Camp personally. I only knew of him through his reputation—most notably for winning NOSSCR’s Distinguished Service Award. He earned that recognition for his critical work challenging a national policy that kept claimants and their representatives in the dark about which judge would preside over their hearings. (If you’re skeptical about how much a judge’s identity affects outcomes, take a look at this data: SSA ALJ Disposition Data).

Since I’ve been on the Board, I’ve watched David serve in numerous roles—President of NOSSCR, Chief Policy Officer, Interim CEO, and now CEO. One of the greatest privileges of Board service has been getting to know dedicated, principled advocates from across the country. David is among the best of them.

I’ve been asked more than once, “Who is David Camp?”

Here’s what I’ve come to know: David began his legal career in legal services, then went on to found a firm in St. Louis that focused on helping homeless individuals obtain SSI benefits. He’s always thinking ahead—finding ways to expand his practice, such as representing individuals under investigation by SSA’s Office of Inspector General, and devising methods to connect “unwanted” leads from lead vendors (like SSI applicants) with representatives who are eager to help. And from what I’ve seen, those ideas are just the tip of the iceberg.

What I didn’t know—until recently, and not from David himself—was the full extent of what he endured while challenging the SSA’s “secret ALJ policy.” He taught himself FOIA litigation, filed repeated challenges, and drafted all the pleadings—all while managing his firm and maintaining a full caseload. During this time, David was hospitalized twice due to serious medical issues. But the real storm hadn’t even hit yet.

His father was hospitalized for months with a condition that ultimately led to his passing. Around the same time, David’s wife was injured, and their dog, Tabasco, was diagnosed with lung cancer. Amid all this, David went to his father’s bedside daily after long workdays, took on responsibility for his father’s affairs, and acted as the point of contact for his extended family. At home, he became “Mr. Mom,” caring for his son and supporting his wife through her rehabilitation. And still, he fought on—tirelessly challenging the SSA’s harmful policy.

Here’s what truly speaks volumes: David eventually cracked the code at his local OHO and figured out how to determine which ALJ was assigned to his firm’s cases. He could have stopped there. But he didn’t. He knew this fight wasn’t just about his own firm—it was about justice and fairness for all claimants and their representatives. So he kept going. And he won. (NOSSCR recognized him not only with an award—but also a fruit basket!)

This is the David I’ve come to know: someone who does what’s right for the community, even when it’s difficult and even when he doesn’t stand to benefit personally. He’s not leading NOSSCR for a paycheck—he’s in it because he’s full of ideas, vision, and determination to make the system better for all of us.

I know David is working hard when I get texts from him late on Friday nights and early on Sunday mornings about Social Security policy. That’s not unusual. He’s also a policy and politics enthusiast—who else would text me from an airport restaurant to say he was stuck next to both Samantha Power and Martha Raddatz?

Since moving NOSSCR’s operations to Washington, D.C., we’ve seen some home runs (like the second increase in the fee cap) and some misses (like the food at the Nashville conference). But the key difference now is this: we’re on the playing field, not sitting on the sidelines. And that’s where we need to be.

Looking ahead, I know the road won’t always be easy—for claimants or for those who represent them. But I’m confident knowing that David, along with the rest of the NOSSCR Board, is looking out for our community. He’s done it before—when it was hard, and when he didn’t have to. By God’s grace, we’ll keep moving forward—together.

NOSSCR Welcomes Commissioner Bisignano

After his successful Senate confirmation, NOSSCR welcomed Commissioner Bisignano to the Social Security Administration with a detailed letter, outlining the key challenges facing the disability program and proposing immediately implementable solutions.

Medical Records Payment Rates 2025

One of NOSSCR’s top advocacy priorities is ensuring that medical records for Social Security disability cases are provided to the agency efficiently and at no cost. We are making progress, and hope to have more good news to report soon. Until then, here is the list of current state laws that limit (or don’t) medical data providers’ ability to charge to for medical records in Social Security disability cases.

This year’s MVPs are Tennessee, Virginia, and Maryland, all of which made significant improvements in their laws (due to the excellent advocacy efforts of several individuals, many of whom we are lucky to have in our membership).

Alabama: $1 per page for the first 25 pages, 50¢ per page for each additional page, and a search fee of $5. Reasonable costs also include the actual cost of mailing the records. In addition, the provider may also charge the actual cost of reproducing X-rays and other special medical records. Code of Alabama § 12-21-6.1.

A note on the search fee: if the individual requests their own records, per HIPPA, the search fee must be waived; however, this required waiver applies only to an individual’s request for access to their own records and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.

Alaska: Although Alaska Statutes § 18.23.005 specifies that “a patient is entitled to inspect and copy any records developed or maintained by a health care provider or other person pertaining to the health care rendered to the patient,” no state law limits the costs of providing copies of medical records.

Arizona: One free copy of a patient’s medical records per calendar year if requested by the patient or the patient’s legal representative “for the purpose of appealing a denial of benefits under the social security act.” Before obtaining a patient’s medical records free of charge, “[a] legal representative must provide an Appointment of Representative Form SSA-1696.” Any additional requests for medical records in the same calendar year are subject to “a reasonable fee” for the production of the records. But no fees may be charged if no medical records are found in response to the request. Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-2295.B.5.

Arkansas: For paper records: 50¢ per page for the first 25 pages, 25¢ per page for each additional page, and a $25 labor charge. The actual cost of any required postage can also be charged. However, these per page limits do not apply to photocopies of x-rays.

For electronic records: $75 and the actual cost of postage, if any postage is required. No other fees may be charged for electronic records. Medical records requested that exist in electronic format shall be produced within 30 days after receipt of the request.

Additional “reasonable fees” can be charged for retrieval of records stored offsite and for narrative medical reports. Arkansas Code § 16-46-106(a).

California: One free copy of a patient’s medical records for “a patient, employee of a nonprofit legal services entity representing the patient, or the personal representative of a patient” if the records are needed to support a claim or appeal regarding eligibility for a public benefit program, which includes Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income benefits. Notably, the provision granting one free copy of the patient’s medical records does not apply if the patient is represented by a “private attorney,” meaning any attorney not employed by a nonprofit legal services entity, who is paying for the costs related to the patient’s appeal, pending the outcome of that appeal. In that case, the medical provider may charge 25¢ per page for paper copies or 50¢ per page for records that are copied from microfilm, plus the costs of labor, supplies, and postage, if applicable. If the records are requested to support a claim or appeal regarding eligibility for a public benefit program, the medical provider must “ensure that the copies are transmitted within 30 days after receiving the written request.” California Health & Safety Code, Division 106, Chapter 1, § 123110(d)(1) .

Colorado: $18.53 for the first 10 pages, 85¢ per page for the next 30 pages, and 57¢ per page for each additional page. These costs do not apply to medical records that are stored on microfilm, which cost $1.50 per page, or radiographic studies, which cost the actual cost of reproduction for each radiograph copy. Additionally, the medical provider may charge the actual postage and electronic media costs, if applicable, and any applicable taxes as well as a $10 fee for certification of the medical records, if requested. 

However, a third-party entity that is performing duties under the Laura Hershey Disability Support Act, which funds a program that awards contracts to nonprofit organizations “to aid persons with disabilities in accessing disability benefits…,” is entitled to one free copy of a patient’s medical records “when required by the disability benefit administrator.”  Colorado Revised Statutes § 25-1-801. 

Connecticut: No charge for medical records requested by a patient, patient’s attorney or authorized representative “for the purpose of supporting a claim or appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act…” The request must be accompanied by documentation of the claim or appeal. The medical provider must furnish the records within 30 days of the request. Connecticut General Statutes § 20-7c(d).

Delaware: $2 per page for the first 10 pages, $1 per page for pages 11-20, 90¢ per page for pages 21-60, and 50¢ per page for pages 61 and above. The actual cost of reproduction may be charged for records unsusceptible to photocopying, such as radiology films, models, photographs or fetal monitoring strips. The medical provider may also charge the actual cost of postage or shipping if the records are mailed.  Advance payment for medical records requested to make or complete an application for a disability benefits program is not required. Delaware Administrative Code, Title 24, Division 1700, § 16.0.

District of Columbia: For electronic copies, medical providers may charge an authorized person 70¢ per page, not to exceed $92.08 total, and a $24.34 search and handling fee (even if no personal medical record is located).

For non-electronic copies, medical providers may charge an authorized person 93¢ per page (with no maximum), a $24.34 search and handling fee (even if no personal medical record is located), and the actual cost for postage and handling.

These fees will be adjusted annually for inflation. The 2025 rates are reflected above and located here.

The medical provider must provide copies of the records within 30 days of receipt of the request. Code of the District of Columbia § 3–1210.12. For requests by a patient or a person with a health care power of attorney for the patient, medical providers may charge “a reasonable fee for copying.” Code of the District of Columbia § 3–1210.11.

Florida: 

Hospitals: $1 per page, plus sales tax and actual postage. Non-paper records (such as microfiche) are subject to a charge not to exceed $2 per page. A fee of up to $1 may be charged for each year of requested records. However, this does not apply to records maintained at any licensed facility that primarily provides psychiatric care, or to records of treatment for any mental or emotional condition, or records of substance abuse. Florida Statutes, Title XXIX, Chapter 395, § 3025.

Doctors: While “the Board of Medicine urges physicians to provide their patients a copy of their medical records, upon request, without cost, especially when the patient is economically disadvantaged,” the doctor is permitted to charge “patients and governmental entities” $1 per page for the first 25 pages and 25¢ for each additional page. For “other entities,” the reasonable costs of reproducing copies of written or typed documents or reports shall not be more than $1.00 per page. The doctor may charge the actual cost of reproduction for x-rays and other special kinds of records. Florida Administrative Code § 64B8-10.003.

Georgia: Per § 31-33-3(a) of the Official Georgia Code Annotated (O.G.C.A.), which sets forth the costs of copying and mailing patient records, these costs “shall not apply to records requested in order to make or complete an application for a disability benefits program.” Notably, according to O.G.C.A. § 31-33-3(c), “the provisions of this chapter…shall not apply to psychiatric, psychological, or other mental health records of a patient. Official Georgia Code Annotated § 31-33-3. See also Georgia Department of Community Health, Medical Records Retrieval Rates.

Hawaii: “Reasonable costs incurred by a health care provider in making copies of medical records shall be borne by the requesting person.” Hawaii Revised Statutes § 622-57(g). If the patient’s attorney requests the records and “presents a proper authorization from the patient for the release of the information, complete and accurate copies of the records shall be given to the attorney within a reasonable time not to exceed ten working days.” Hawaii Revised Statutes § 622-57(b).

Idaho: No state law limits the costs of providing copies of medical records. (A law was proposed by the Idaho Senate in 2024 that would have allowed for one free copy of medical records per year for patient’s filing for Social Security disability, but the law died in the House Committee and was not passed).

Illinois: Effective January 1, 2022, no charge for “one complete copy of a patient’s records,” which includes any updated medical records not included in the original record, if “the records are being requested by the patient or a person, entity, attorney, registered representative, or organization presenting a valid authorization for the release of records signed by the patient or the patient’s legally authorized representative who has provided documentation of authority to act for the patient… for the purpose of supporting a claim for… federal Social Security or Supplemental Security Income benefits, or both, under any title of the Social Security Act…” See Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 735, § 5/8-2001(h). See also Public Act 102-0183.

Indiana: The Department of Insurance sets the rules for making and providing copies of medical records. Indiana Code, Title 16, Article 39, Chapter 9, § 2. The maximum copying fees are $1 per page for the first 10 pages, 50¢ per page for pages 11-50, and 25¢ per page for pages 51 and higher. Additionally, the medical provider may charge the actual cost of mailing. A $20 labor fee can also be charged; however, if a labor fee is charged, the first 10 pages are free. An expedited processing fee of $10 may be charged if the records are to be provided within two working days. The medical provider may also charge $20 for certified records. Indiana Administrative Code, Title 760, Article 1, Rule 71, § 3.

Iowa: Medical providers may charge “the actual cost of production” for producing patient records or images. If the properly submitted request is for “all of the patient’s records for the requested time period, including records relating to the patient’s mental health, substance use disorder, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome-related conditions, the amount charged shall not exceed the rates established by the workers’ compensation commissioner for copies of records in workers’ compensation cases.” The workers’ compensation rates are $20 for pages 1-20, $1 per page for pages 21-30, 50¢ per page for pages 31 to 100, 25¢ per page for pages 101-200, 10¢ per page for more than 200 pages, plus the actual expense of postage. Iowa Admin. Code r. 876-8.10(85,86)

The records and images must be provided within 30 days of receipt of the written request. The medical provider may also charge $10 for certified records. Iowa Code § 622.10(6). 

Kansas: No state law limits the costs of providing copies of medical records since Kansas Statutes Annotated § 65-4971(b) was repealed by the 2011 Kansas Legislature. Thus, the HIPAA language governs, allowing for “reasonable” cost-based fees. Copies of the records shall be furnished within 30 days of the receipt of the authorization. K.S.A. § 65-6836.

Kentucky: One free copy of a patient’s medical records upon the patient’s written request. A copying fee of $1 per page may be charged “for furnishing a second copy of the patient’s medical record upon request either by the patient or the patient’s attorney or the patient’s authorized representative.” Kentucky Revised Statutes § 422.317.

Louisiana: 50¢ per page for the first 5 pages and 25¢ for each additional page for “any records that are necessary to support [a patient’s] filing for Social Security disability benefits or Supplemental Security Income benefits under any provision of the Social Security Act.” The statute also stipulates that “the amount due shall not be less than the amount paid by the Department of Children and Family Services [DCFS] for such copies,” but unfortunately, the DCFS rate is not publicly available. Records should be provided in “a reasonable period of time, not to exceed fifteen days following the receipt of the request and written authorization.” Louisiana Revised Statutes § 46:18.

Maine: 

Hospitals: For paper copies, $5 for the first page and 45¢ for each additional page, up to a maximum of $250 for the entire medical record. “The hospital may require payment prior to responding to the request.” For electronic copies, the hospital may charge “reasonable actual costs of staff time to create or copy the medical record and the costs of necessary supplies and postage,” not to exceed $150. “Actual costs may not include a retrieval fee or the costs of new technology, maintenance of the electronic record system, data access or storage infrastructure.” Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, Subtitle 2, Part 4, Chapter 401, § 1711.

Doctors: For paper copies, $5 for the first page and 45¢ for each additional page, up to a maximum of $250 for the entire treatment record or medical report. For electronic copies, the doctor may charge “reasonable actual costs of staff time to create or copy the treatment record or medical report and the costs of necessary supplies and postage,” not to exceed $150. “Actual costs may not include a retrieval fee or the costs of new technology, maintenance of the electronic record system, data access or storage infrastructure.” Maine Revised Statutes, Title 22, Subtitle 2, Part 4, Chapter 401, § 1711-A.

Maryland: No charge for medical records “that will be used for the purpose of filing a claim regarding or appealing a denial of Social Security Disability Income or Social Security Benefits under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act” when requested by the patient, the patient’s personal representative, “an employee or other representative of a nonprofit legal services entity or other volunteer or nonprofit program representing the patient,” or an attorney representing the patient. Code of Maryland, Health–General § 4-304(c)(5).

Massachusetts: 

Hospitals & Clinics: No charge for medical records requested by “any applicant, beneficiary or individual representing said applicant or beneficiary… for the purpose of supporting a claim or appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act,” upon presentation of “reasonable documentation” showing that the records are being requested for this purpose. The hospital or clinic must furnish the records within 30 days. Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111, § 70.

Doctors: No charge for medical records requested by “any applicant, beneficiary or individual representing said applicant or beneficiary if the record is requested for the purpose of supporting a claim or appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act,” upon presentation of “reasonable documentation” showing that the records are being requested for this purpose. Code of Massachusetts Regulations, Title 243, § 2.07(13)(d). 

Michigan: One free copy of a patient’s medical records for “a medically indigent individual.” Any additional or other requests are subject to an initial fee of $31.54 per request, plus $1.58 per page for the first 20 pages, 79¢ per page for pages 21-50, and 32¢ per page for pages 51+. A medical provider cannot charge a patient the “initial fee” for his/her own medical records. Michigan Compiled Laws § 333.26269. See also State of Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, 2023 MEDICAL RECORDS ACCESS ACT FEES (In Accordance with the Consumer Price Index). 

Minnesota: A $10 retrieval fee (and no per page fee) for “copies of records requested by a patient or the patient’s authorized representative if the request for copies of records is for purposes of appealing a denial of Social Security disability income or Social Security disability benefits under title II or title XVI of the Social Security Act.” But a medical provider cannot even charge the $10 retrieval fee “to a person who is receiving public assistance, who is represented by an attorney on behalf of a civil legal services program or a volunteer attorney program based on indigency.” For further appeals, “a patient may receive no more than two medical record updates without charge, but only for medical record information previously not provided.” Minnesota Statutes § 144.292, subdivision 6, paragraph (d).

Mississippi: $20 total for pages 1-20, $1 per page for the next 80 pages, and 50¢ per page for any additional pages. A medical provider may add 10% of the total charges for postage and handling. Also, an extra $15 can be charged for retrieval of records stored offsite. Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-1-52(1). 

Missouri: For paper copies, a $29.47 copying fee, plus 68¢ per page for the cost of labor and supplies. An extra $27.59 can be charged for retrieval of records stored offsite. For electronic copies, a $29.47 copying fee, plus 68¢ per page, or $129.16 total, whichever is less. Additionally, a medical provider may charge postage, to include packaging and delivery cost, and a $2 notary fee, if requested. Missouri Revised Statutes § 191.227. See also Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Fees for Medical Records.

Montana: $15 administrative fee for searching and handling, plus 50¢ per page for paper copies. Montana Code Annotated § 50-16-540.

Nebraska: No charge for medical records requested by a patient for use in supporting an application for disability benefits or an appeal relating to the denial of such benefits under Title II, Title XVI, or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. The request must also include a statement or document from the Social Security Administration that confirms the application or appeal. Nebraska Revised Statute § 71-8405.

Nevada: One free copy of a patient’s medical records “necessary to support a claim or appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act… if the request is accompanied by documentation of the claim or appeal.” A copying fee of 60¢ per page plus “a reasonable cost for copies of x-ray photographs and other health care records produced by similar processes” may be charged for furnishing a second copy of the patient’s records to support the same claim or appeal. “No administrative fee or additional service fee of any kind may be charged for furnishing such a copy.” Notably, a medical provider cannot deny furnishing a copy of the records “solely because the patient is unable to pay the [applicable] fees.” The records must be provided within 30 days of receipt of the request. Nevada Revised Statutes § 629.061(5).

New Hampshire: $15 total for the first 30 pages or 50¢ per page, whichever is greater. However, a medical provider may charge a “reasonable cost” for providing copies of “filmed records,” including radiograms, x-rays, and sonograms. New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Title XXX, § 332-I:1. 

New Jersey: No charge for medical records requested by a patient or an attorney representing a patient who has a pending application for, or is currently receiving, Social Security disability benefits provided under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act. The records must be delivered in the manner specified by the requestor within 30 days of the request. New Jersey Revised Statutes § 26:2H-5n(d)(5) and New Jersey Revised Statutes § 45:9-22.27.

New Mexico: $2 per page for the first 10 (one-sided) pages, 20¢ per page for each additional page. All requests for medical records needed to support a Social Security disability application or appeal must be accompanied by a written verification of the application or appeal. Regardless of whether the applicable fees have been paid, the medical provider must produce the records within 30 days of receipt of the written request. New Mexico Administrative Code § 8.370.6.8-10.

New York: No charge for medical records if requested “for the purpose of supporting an application, claim or appeal for any government benefit or program…” If the medical provider maintains records in electronic format, it will provide copies “in either electronic or paper form, as required by the government benefit or program, or at the patient’s request.” New York Public Health Law § 17. 

North Carolina: 75¢ per page for the first 25 pages, 50¢ per page for pages 26-100, and 25¢ per page for each page over 100, with a minimum fee of $10. North Carolina General Statutes § 90-411.

North Dakota: For paper copies, $20 total for the first 25 pages, plus 75¢ per page for each additional page. For electronic copies, $30 total for the first 25 pages, plus 25¢ per page for each additional page. North Dakota Century Code § 23-12-14.2.

Ohio: One free copy of a patient’s medical records, plus one free copy of any updated records (excluding copies of records already provided), to a patient or his/her personal representative or authorized person “if the medical record is necessary to support a claim under Title II or Title XVI of the Social Security Act.” The request must be accompanied by documentation that a disability claim has been filed. Ohio Revised Code § 3701.741(C)(1)(e).

Oklahoma: For paper copies, 50¢ per page. For electronic copies, 30¢ per page plus delivery fees, not to exceed a combined total of $200. If an attorney requests the records, the medical provider may charge an additional $20 base fee (even if the search yields no records), plus postage or delivery fees. Each printed x-ray, other photograph, or image costs $15 plus $20 per CD/DVD or other electronic media that it is provided on. The medical provider may also charge $15 for certified records. However, a medical provider cannot charge a patient requesting his/her own records any fees for “searching, retrieving, reviewing, and preparing medical records.” Oklahoma Statutes § 76-19(A)(2).

Oregon: One free copy of a patient’s medical records for the period from the date of the alleged onset of disability to the date of the administrative hearing to support an appeal of the denial of Social Security disability benefits to the claimant or his/her personal representative in either paper or electronic format. Oregon Revised Statutes § 192.576. 

Pennsylvania: A flat fee of $36.42 plus the actual cost of postage, shipping or delivery for the production of records “requested for the purpose of supporting a claim or appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act.” The medical provider must be given “clear and convincing documentation” that the records are necessary to support a Social Security claim or appeal. Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes, Title 42, Chapter 61, § 6152.1. See also Amendments to Charges for Medical Records.

Puerto Rico: Every provider shall provide all patients “with a speedy access to their files and records. Patients are entitled to receive a copy of their medical record.” There is no further law limiting the costs of providing copies of medical records, except that “whenever any of the parties, to wit the medical services provider or the patient, concludes the physician-patient relationship, said medical record shall be furnished to the patient, father, mother, or custodian free of charge, within a term that shall not exceed five (5) working days. The fact that an outstanding debt exists between the physician and the patient shall not be an impediment for the patient to obtain his/her medical record.” 24 L of PR § 3049.

Rhode Island: No charge for medical records if the record is requested “by the applicant or beneficiary or individual representing an applicant or beneficiary for the purposes of supporting a claim or appeal under the provision of the Social Security Act.” 216-RICR-40-05-1.5.12(B)(3).

South Carolina: For paper and electronic copies, 85¢ per page for the first 30 pages, 65¢ per page for each additional page, plus a $32.98 clerical fee. For paper copies, altogether these fees cannot exceed $263.95, and for electronic records, these combined fees cannot exceed $197.97. Actual postage and applicable sales tax may also be charged. The search and handling fees are permitted even when no medical record is found as a result of the search, except where the request is made by the patient.

For copies of x-rays, the hospital may charge the actual cost of reproduction, including the cost of materials and supplies used to duplicate the x-ray and the labor and overhead costs associated with the duplication. The provider must furnish the records no later than 45 days after the patient’s discharge or 45 days after the request is received, whichever is later. South Carolina Code of Laws § 44-7-325 and South Carolina Code of Laws § 44-115-80; see also The Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), Annual Adjustment to Fee for Search & Duplication of Medical Records.

South Dakota: For paper copies, $10 for the first 10 pages and 33¢ for each additional page. For electronic copies, 25¢ per page. For a printed copy of an x-ray, MRI, or other form of medical imaging, a fee not to exceed $10, and for an electronic copy of the same, a fee not to exceed $15. The provider may also charge the cost of postage, shipping, and any applicable tax. South Dakota Codified Laws §36-2-16.4.

Tennessee: 

Hospitals: No charge for one copy of medical records for an “indigent person” (or the person’s attorney or authorized representative) to support a claim or appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act, if the request is accompanied by a copy of a recent application for or decision denying Social Security benefits. “Patients being represented by organizations whose purpose is to provide legal assistance to the indigent, or represented by attorneys with an affiliated pro bono program, shall be presumed indigent.” Those represented by others may be required to provide proof of indigency. The hospital must furnish the records within 30 days of the request. Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-304(a)(2)(B)(i-ii).

For non-indigent patients, the hospital may charge an $18 fee, which includes the first 5 pages, and a per page charge of 85¢ for pages 6-50, 60¢ per page for pages 51-250, and 35¢ per page for each page after that. The hospital may also charge $20 for each certified record. Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-11-304(a)(2)(A)(iii).

Doctors: Non-hospital medical providers in Tennessee can only charge a flat fee of twenty dollars ($20) for an electronic copy of medical records requested by anyone other than the patient for “patients involved in a claim or appeal of denial for social security disability benefits.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-2-102(a)(2)(B)(vii). Requests for paper records will continue to incur additional costs, not to exceed $25 for pages 1-5, plus 50¢ per page for each page copied after the first 5 pages, plus the actual cost of mailing. If producing radiology images in hard copy, a charge of no more than $20 per printed film is allowed, as is a notary fee of $20 if requested. Tenn. Code Ann. § 63-2-102(a)(1).

Texas: One free copy of a patient’s medical records, including mental health records, requested by a patient, former patient, or his/her attorney or “other authorized representative” for use in supporting an application for or appeal of disability benefits under Title II, Title XVI, or Title XVIII of the Social Security Act. If additional information is added to the patient or former patient’s record, upon request, the provider will supplement the record provided free of charge. The request must also include documentation from the Social Security Administration confirming the application or appeal. Texas Health & Safety Code § 161.202. 

Utah: One free copy of a patient’s medical records if the request “is accompanied by documentation of a qualified claim or appeal” for benefits under any provision of the Social Security Act. “[F]or a second or subsequent copy in a calendar year of a date of service that is necessary to support the qualified claim or appeal,” the medical provider may charge 60¢ per page for paper copies and no more than the allowable amount in Subsection (10)(c) for electronic copies (maximum of $150). The records must be provided within 30 days of receipt of the request. Utah Code § 78B-5-618(10). 

Vermont: No charge for medical records “requested to support a claim or an appeal under any provision of the Social Security Act.” Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 18, § 9419(a).

Virginia: If a patient requests a copy of his/her own records, a medical provider may charge a “reasonable cost-based fee,” which can only include the cost of supplies for and labor of copying the requested information, postage, and preparation of an explanation or summary of such information as agreed to by the patient. Code of Virginia § 32.1-127.1:03(J).

If an attorney requests a copy of the patient’s records, for paper copies, a medical provider may charge 50¢ per page up to 50 pages and 25¢ per page for each additional page, plus a $20 search and handling fee and all postage and shipping costs. These costs do not apply to hard copies from microfilm or other micrographic process, which cost $1 per page. For electronic copies, a medical provider may charge 37¢ per page up to 50 pages and 18¢ per page for each additional page, plus a $20 search and handling fee and all postage and shipping costs, not to exceed a total of $160. These costs do not apply to electronic copies of x-rays, which cost a “reasonable fee” of $25 per x-ray, plus a search and handling fee of $10 and all postage and shipping costs. The patient’s attorney must provide the medical provider with a written confirmation signed by the patient confirming the attorney’s authority to make the request (a photocopy, facsimile or other copy of the original signed by the patient is acceptable). The medical provider must furnish the records within 30 days of receipt of the request and production of the records cannot be withheld or delayed solely on the grounds of nonpayment. Code of Virginia § 8.01-413(B).

Effective July 1, 2025, A health care provider shall provide one free copy of a patient’s medical records stored or maintained in an electronic health record (EHR) per calendar year if requested by a patient or his attorney for the purpose of supporting a claim or appeal under Title II, XVI, XVIII, or XIX of the Social Security Act, 38 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., or under any federal or state financial needs-based benefit program, provided that the request is supported by a reasonable amount of documentation, including evidence of representation in the Social Security disability courts such as the Social Security Administration Appointment of Representative form or a notice of or request for a hearing, regarding such purpose. Any additional requests for medical records in the same calendar year are subject to a reasonable fee for the production of the records. No fees shall be charged if no medical records are found in response to the request. § 8.01-413(B)(7). 

Washington: One free copy of a patient’s medical records every two years “if the patient is appealing the denial of” SSI or Social Security disability benefits and the request is made by a patient or his/her “personal representative.” Beyond the free copy, a provider may charge a “reasonable fee.” Revised Code of Washington § 70.02.030(2)(b).

West Virginia: One free copy of a patient’s medical records for an “indigent person” if necessary to support a claim or appeal under any provisions of the Social Security Act. Patients are considered indigent if they are “represented by an organization or affiliated pro bono program that provides legal assistance to indigents; or verifies on a medical records request and release form that the records are requested for purposes of supporting a Social Security claim or appeal and submits with the release form reasonable proof that the person is financially unable to pay full copying charges by reason of unemployment, disability, income below the federal poverty level, or receipt of state or federal income assistance.” West Virginia Code § 16-29-2(f).

For non-indigent patients or additional patient requests from the same medical provider, the medical provider may charge “a fee consistent with HIPAA” not to exceed 40¢ per page, a $20 search and handling fee, and any actual mailing costs and applicable taxes. For electronic records, the fees cannot exceed $150, inclusive of all fees, except for applicable taxes. A provider can charge $10 if a certified copy is requested. West Virginia Code § 16-29-2(b). 

Wisconsin: If a patient or his/her authorized representative requests medical records for use in appealing the denial of a Social Security disability insurance or Supplemental Security Income claim, the medical provider cannot charge “more than the amount that the federal Social Security Administration reimburses the department for copies of patient health care records.” Wisconsin Statutes § 146.83(1f)(am). See also 20 C.F.R § 401.95, showing a current SSA reimbursement rate of 10¢ per page, with the caveat that there is no charge if the total amount of copying does not exceed $25.

Wyoming: A medical provider may charge “reasonable charges, and charge a patient for the actual costs incurred in responding to a patient’s request” for medical records, including “the cost of copies, clerical staff time and the physician’s time in reviewing and summarizing the records and/or x-rays and diagnostic records, if necessary.” However, a medical provider cannot deny a patient a summary or copy of his/her medical records because of an inability to pay. Wyoming Administrative Rules, Medicine, Board of, Chapter 3: Practice of Medicine, § 4(e).

Additional Resources to Consider:

HIPAA: The Privacy Rule permits a medical provider to impose a “reasonable, cost-based fee,” which may include only the cost of labor for copying the requested records, whether in paper or electronic form; supplies for creating the paper copy or electronic media (e.g., CD or USB drive); postage, when records are requested to be mailed; and preparation of an explanation or summary of the medical records, if agreed to by the patient. 45 CFR § 164.524(c)(4). The fee may not include costs associated with verification, documentation, search and retrieval, maintaining systems, recouping capital for data access, storage, or infrastructure, or other costs not listed above, even if such costs are authorized by state law. See also U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Individuals’ Right under HIPAA to Access their Health Information 45 CFR § 164.524. However, “the fee limitation set forth at 45 C.F.R. § 164.524(c)(4) apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.” U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Important Notice Regarding Individuals’ Right of Access to Health Records.

HITECH Act: Under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, health care providers that maintain electronic medical records, excluding psychotherapy records, are required to provide them to the patient for the actual cost of production within 30 days of the written request. The request must be signed by the patient indicating that it is a patient’s request for medical records. After the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the “Patient Rate” is not applicable to an individual’s request for his/her medical records to be sent to a third party in Ciox Health, LLC v. Azar, et al., No. 18-cv-0040 (D.D.C. January 23, 2020), HHS issued an “Important Notice Regarding Individuals’ Right of Access to Health Records” explaining that the fee limitations “will apply only to an individual’s request for access to their own records, and does not apply to an individual’s request to transmit records to a third party.”

21^st Century Cures Act: The Interoperability, Information Blocking, and the ONC Health IT Certification Program final rule implements certain provisions of the 21st Century Cures Act. 85 Fed. Reg. 25642 (May 1, 2020). The regulations, specifically 45 CFR § 171.302, explain when a medical provider may still charge for “accessing, exchanging, or using” electronic health information (EHI) and make clear that providers cannot charge “[a] fee based in any part on the electronic access of an individual’s EHI by the individual, their personal representative, or another person or entity designated by the individual [emphasis added].” See § 171.302(b)(2). However, the regulation defines “electronic access” as an “internet-based method that makes electronic health information available at the time the electronic health information is requested and where no manual effort is required to fulfill the request [emphasis added].” See § 171.302(d). See also www.healthit.gov/curesrule/faq/if-individual-asks-actor-provide-copy-individuals-electronic-health-information-ehi-some-form. These rules, specifically 45 CFR § 171.102, exclude psychotherapy notes and “[i]nformation compiled in reasonable anticipation of, or for use in, a civil, criminal, or administrative action or proceeding” from the definition of EHI.

REGISTER NOW for NOSSCR’s 2025 Fall National Conference in San Diego

Feeling left out because you weren’t able to join us in DC? Or maybe you were there but you’re missing everyone already?? Well you’re in luck! NOSSCR’s 2025 Fall Conference is happening September 9-12, 2025, and the time to register is NOW! This conference brings together Social Security disability representatives from across the country for days filled with valuable education, networking, and advocacy opportunities. Plus we’ll be in a resort setting in beautiful San Diego (have you heard that the hotel has THREE pools?!?).

Just like our Spring Conference, this event will feature CLE sessions led by experienced professionals, discussions on the latest policy updates, and opportunities to connect with colleagues who understand the challenges and successes of this field—all set against the stunning backdrop of San Diego’s coastline.

Registration is open — so don’t delay, make plans to join us today!

Krause Chronicles: The Treating Physician Rule, Part III

Tom Krause, NOSSCR Of-Counsel

The Death of the Treating Source Rule

This is the third in a series of four articles on the history and development of the Treating Source Rule. As with the two prior articles, a more detailed analysis of the issue follows this article.

For decades, the treating physician rule embodied sound medical and legal policy, recognizing a fundamental truth: doctors who observe patients over time possess qualitatively different and superior knowledge compared to those conducting brief examinations or reviewing files. The rule, codified in 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1527(b) and 416.927(b), acknowledged that treating physicians who adjust medications, monitor treatment responses, and witness functional changes possess insights unavailable to consultative examiners or state agency reviewers.

As the Eleventh Circuit noted in Spencer v. Heckler,[1] attempting to evaluate disability without personal examination and longitudinal observation constitutes “medical sophistry at its best.” This principle wasn’t merely a regulatory preference—it reflected medical reality.

SSR 06-3p

Social Security Ruling 06-3p represented a sensible expansion of treating source principles to non-physician providers, such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants. The ruling preserved the core principle that ongoing treatment relationships offer unique insights as healthcare delivery evolves in a modern context. Critically, SSR 06-3p maintained a focus on relationship factors, including the length of treatment, frequency of examination, and the nature of the therapeutic relationship.

The 2013 ACUS Report

In April 2013, the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) issued its final report on the treating source rule. ACUS, SSA Disability Benefits Programs: Assessing the Efficacy of the Treating Physician Rule (Apr. 3, 2013). The report documented high remand rates but fundamentally misinterpreted the data. Finding that federal courts remanded cases 45% of the time, with treating source issues as the primary reason, the report concluded the rule itself was defective rather than inconsistently applied.

This analysis conflated correlation with causation. The same statistics could have supported conclusions that better training, more precise guidance, and improved quality assurance were needed. The Appeals Council’s 24% remand rate for treating source issues demonstrated that administrative review could identify and correct ALJ errors, suggesting targeted solutions rather than wholesale elimination.

The 2017 Regulatory Overhaul

SSA published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in September 2016.[2] Despite overwhelming stakeholder opposition during the comment period, SSA proceeded to eliminate the treating source rule.[3] The final rule, published on January 18, 2017, replaced the hierarchical framework with the “persuasiveness” standard under 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520c and 416.920c.

What We Lost: The Medical Reality

The new framework treats all medical opinions as potentially equivalent, disregarding fundamental differences in their knowledge bases. A treating physician who has monitored a patient’s functional decline over the years, adjusted medications, and observed treatment responses is now evaluated using the same criteria as a consultative examiner who spends thirty minutes with the claimant.

The supportability and consistency factors, although superficially appealing, cannot fully capture the unique value of longitudinal knowledge about functional changes over time, treatment response patterns, and patient-specific factors that affect disability. The framework reduces complex medical relationships to standardized evaluation criteria, overlooking essential elements of treating physician insight.

The Consequences We’re Living With

The dual system created by the 2017 changes, where pre-March 27, 2017, cases follow the old rules while newer cases use the persuasiveness framework, creates an unnecessary administrative burden. More troubling, the new framework’s emphasis on subjective concepts like “supportability” and “consistency” creates opportunities for inconsistent decision-making disguised as objective evaluation.

Contrary to SSA’s predictions, federal court remand rates have increased to 58%, higher than the 45% rate that supposedly justified eliminating the treating source rule. This increase suggests that eliminating clear hierarchical standards has made consistent evaluation more difficult, not easier.

Conclusion

SSA could have addressed legitimate concerns while preserving the core principles of the treating source rule. Enhanced standards could have provided more explicit guidance on when opinions should be treated as credible or discredited. Enhanced training programs could have addressed inconsistencies in the application process. Quality assurance enhancements could have monitored rule application and identified adjudicators needing additional guidance.

The expansion of acceptable medical sources to include nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and audiologists was sound policy that could have been implemented while extending treating source protections to these qualified providers when they establish longitudinal relationships.

Instead, we are left with a system that treats our clients more harshly, leading to more appeals.

Next month: In the fourth installment of this series, we will examine litigation strategies to revise – and perhaps expand – the Treating Source Rule.

---

[1]  Spencer on Behalf of Spencer v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 1090, 1094 (11th Cir. 1985) see Nelson v. Heckler, 712 F.2d 346, 348 (8th Cir. 1983). 

[2]  Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 81 FR 62560-01, 2016 WL 4702272 (September 9, 2016).

[3]  Revisions to Rules Regarding the Evaluation of Medical Evidence, 82 FR 5844-01, 2017 WL 168819 (January 18, 2017).

Download the document below for a more thorough discussion on this topic:

When is a Fee Too Much?

Adriana M. de la Torre, NOSSCR Sustaining Member

A Deep Dive into Tucker v. Commissioner of Social Security

Attorney’s fees in Social Security disability cases under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b) often spark debate, and frustration. While a 25% contingency fee agreement is standard, courts have the authority to reduce these fees if they deem them unreasonable. That’s exactly what happened in Tucker v. Commissioner of Social Security, a recent and instructive case from the Sixth Circuit.

The Background: Tucker’s Claim and Her Attorney’s Request

Debra Tucker filed for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits in 2018. After administrative denials, her case made its way to federal court. In 2023, the district court granted the Commissioner’s unopposed motion to remand the case. On remand, Tucker won a fully favorable decision and was awarded $124,821.70 in past-due benefits.

Her attorney, working under a 25% contingency agreement, requested $31,205.43 in fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). She had already received a $7,500 award under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). But the district court awarded only $17,400, reducing the fee based on concerns of an excessive “windfall” for 34.8 hours of work.

Understanding § 406(b) and Fee Reasonableness

Section 406(b) allows a court to award a “reasonable” fee for legal representation in Social Security cases, up to 25% of the claimant’s past-due benefits. But it also mandates a judicial check on the reasonableness of any fee requested, even if the claimant agreed to it in advance.

Key Precedents

• Gisbrecht v. Barnhart (2002): Courts should respect contingency agreements but must evaluate their reasonableness.
• Rodriquez v. Bowen (6th Cir. 1989): Contingency fees within the 25% cap are presumed reasonable but can be rebutted.
• Hayes v. Secretary of Health & Human Services (6th Cir. 1990): If the effective hourly rate is less than twice the market rate, it’s considered per se reasonable.

The Sixth Circuit’s Analysis in Tucker

The Sixth Circuit upheld the district court’s decision, agreeing that the reduced fee was within the court’s discretion. Here’s how the appellate court broke it down:

1. Starting Point: The Contingency Agreement

The court began its analysis, as required, with the 25% contingency agreement. But it emphasized that such agreements are not automatically binding.

2. Effective Hourly Rate Calculation

• Requested: $31,205.43 for 34.8 hours = $896.71/hour
• Awarded: $17,400 = $500/hour

The court found nearly $900/hour too high, even accounting for risk and skill.

3. No Evidence of Higher Market Rate

The attorney cited a personal standard rate of $650–$750/hour but submitted no evidence, no affidavits, no regional data, and no comparison rates for similar legal work.

🔍 Tip: To argue for a higher effective rate, provide affidavits, market studies, or examples from other cases.

4. Complexity and Result

Although the attorney achieved a favorable outcome, the court noted:

• The legal issues were not complex
• The Commissioner’s remand was unopposed
• The attorney requested a 30-day extension to file the brief

These factors weighed against awarding the full 25%.

Q&A: What Social Security Attorneys Need to Know

Q: Is the 25% fee cap a guaranteed fee?

A: No. Courts treat it as a ceiling, not a floor. Judges still evaluate whether the full amount is reasonable based on effort, complexity, and results.

Q: Can high effective hourly rates justify reduced fees?

A: Yes. If a court determines the hourly rate derived from a contingency fee is disproportionately high, it may reduce the award, especially without supporting evidence.

Q: What kind of evidence supports a higher fee?

A: Useful documentation includes:

• Affidavits from local attorneys
• Prevailing market rates for similar work
• Justification of the attorney’s expertise and unique contributions

Q: Does a good outcome alone justify the full fee?

A: No. Courts also consider the complexity of the case, procedural posture (e.g., unopposed remands), and whether the attorney caused any delays.

Practical Takeaways for Social Security Lawyers

Attorneys who represent claimants on a contingency basis should:

🔹 Submit Evidence: Include market rate data, peer affidavits, and other proof of your value.

🔹 Track Your Time Thoughtfully: Even under a contingency fee, a clear record of your time helps demonstrate reasonableness.

🔹 Address Complexity and Risk: Spell out why the case was complex or high-risk, don’t assume the judge will infer it.

🔹 Avoid Delay: Minimize extensions unless absolutely necessary, and explain any unavoidable delays in your petition.

🔹 Align with Precedents: Know your district’s trends. In the Eastern District of Kentucky, for example, $500–$700/hour is often deemed reasonable.

Final Thoughts

Tucker v. Commissioner is a strong reminder that courts still play gatekeeper, even when fee agreements are in place. The decision reaffirms that effective representation alone isn’t enough, you must also demonstrate that your fee is reasonable under the law. This case offers a roadmap for lawyers on how to protect their earnings and their reputations when seeking fees under § 406(b).

Got any questions? Schedule a consultation with us. I’m here to help. It’s a lot to take in, but we’ll get through it together. After all, navigating these waters is always easier when you’ve got someone to chat with.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.

Piemonte’s Perspective

George Piemonte, NOSSCR 11th Circuit Board Representative

VEs in hearings will often testify that employers accept 2 (or even more) absences per month. What is wrong with this?

• No (federal) law requires employers to provide sick leave. In 2024, per the DOL, workers were absent 3.2 days for the YEAR, resulting in 1.7 days of lost worktime. See: BLS’ Annual Averages: Absences from work of employed full-time wage and salary workers by occupation and industry.
• In the real world, only valuable employees (i.e. skilled workers) are allowed regular absences.
• In unskilled work, the employer has no reason to hold a job for an absent worker, as any applicant can do the job without skills.
• In everyday workplaces, employers do not give unskilled workers anything close to two or more days absent per month.

So, how do you handle this testimony when the VE makes such a statement? You can ask the following questions:

• Why would an employer hold an unskilled job for a sick worker?
• What is the business case for holding it when any other person off the street could fill it?
• How much sick leave does the law require? (The answer is none. See DOL above)
• How many sick days are actually taken in the US? (1.7 to 3.2 days per year. Available at DOL site above)
• What is the source of your testimony? Ask for the specific pinpoint citation.
  • See Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S.Ct. 1148 (2019) and the January 2025 version of the VE Handbook on pages 3, 19, 21, 30, 33, and 44, stating that the VE must be prepared to cite, explain, and furnish any sources they rely on in their testimony.
• Consider getting statements from a handful of employers or a VE and submit as rebuttal evidence.

The evidence demonstrates that attributing two or more absences per month as a standard benchmark does not reflect the practical realities of the modern workforce.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of NOSSCR, its leadership, or staff.

Introducing: NOSSCR Workshops!

Do you have niche knowledge within Social Security disability law that could benefit your colleagues?

Have you always wanted to present at a NOSSCR conference, but a full hour on the big stage sounds daunting? 

Then our new Workshops are the perfect fit for you!

This exciting NEW opportunity will afford you the chance to share your knowledge in an informal setting and connect with colleagues on a deeper level. During our September conference in San Diego, we will host multiple small, themed workshops where a workshop leader will provide a brief summary of their subject-matter knowledge, followed by an open group discussion on the topic.

If you are interested in facilitating one of these collegial workshops, we want to hear from you. To apply, email nosscr@nosscr.org with your name, a short bio, headshot, and a brief proposal of your topic.

We look forward to your submissions!

Just Ask Jennifer: Federal Register Happenings

Jennifer Cronenberg, NOSSCR Senior Counsel and Director of Legal Information

As I’m sure our readers know, the Federal Register is the “official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of Federal agencies and organizations, as well as executive orders and other presidential documents.” After requesting comment from the public, agencies do consider the submitted comments and address them in their final publications, sometimes significantly altering their proposed rule as a result of public comment. Below I have included a selection of the recent activities concerning Social Security. Should you wish to discuss any of these entries in greater length (perhaps in preparation for your own comment submission, or because you feel strongly about what NOSSCR should include in our comments), please reach out to me at jennifer.cronenberg@nosscr.org.

• Enterprise Scheduling System (ESS)
  • “The Enterprise Scheduling System (ESS) allows for both customer self-scheduling and technician-assisted scheduling through an electronic scheduling tool. The first ESS release specifically allowed self-scheduling for enumeration services. However, we are now extending its current functionality, enabling customers and technicians to: schedule, reschedule, or cancel enumeration appointments for new or replacement Social Security cards; and complete Post-Entitlement (PE) actions, such as changing a Representative Payee, processing non-receipt of payment, updating an SSI record, or submitting evidence. In addition, ESS will allow technicians the ability to schedule, reschedule or cancel PE appointments on behalf of customers.”
    • The comment period closes July 21, 2025
    • While not specifically requested, NOSSCR believes this would be a good opportunity to comment about the importance of expanding the electronic scheduling tool to include all appointment types (similar to the model that most Department of Motor Vehicles use)
    • NOSSCR plans to submit comments

• Request for Information; Health Technology Ecosystem
  • “Effective and responsible adoption of technology can empower patients to make better decisions for their health and well-being. This request for information (RFI) seeks input from the public regarding the market of digital health products for Medicare beneficiaries as well as the state of data interoperability and broader health technology infrastructure. Responses to this RFI may be used to inform CMS and ASTP/ONC efforts to lead infrastructure progress to cultivate this market, increasing beneficiary access to effective digital capabilities needed to make informed health decisions, and increasing data availability for all stakeholders contributing to health outcomes.”
    • The comment period closes June 16, 2025
    • NOSSCR plans to submit comments

• eSignature/Upload Documents & Commercial Product Alternative Signature (CPAS)
  • “Executive Order (E.O.) 14058, Transforming Federal Customer Experience and Service Delivery to Rebuild Trust in Government, requires SSA to develop a mobile-accessible, online process so that any individual applying for, or receiving services from, SSA can upload forms, documentation, evidence, or correspondence associated with their transaction without the need for service-specific tools or travel to a field office. To comply with E.O. 14058, SSA created eSignature/Upload Documents, which allows respondents to upload and submit forms, documentation, and evidence to SSA electronically through the internet or a mobile application.”
  • “As per the requirements of E.O. 14058, respondents may use the secure upload portal, eSignature/Upload Documents, to submit documents and webforms to SSA. As of the March 2024 national rollout, eSignature/Upload Documents contains 71 forms and allows for the electronic submission of 79 evidence types. The current process requires an SSA technician to request forms and evidence from a customer, then send an email or text to the customer with a link to upload these documents. As a direct result of SSA Customer Experience (CX) testing and feedback recommendations, the eSignature/Upload Documents team is enhancing the tool to include an expansion of forms and evidence types available for upload including additional PDFs, as well as static and dynamic webforms.”
  • The Proposed Request also mentions CPAS, which is the current means by which the agency is accepting digitally signed forms, including the SSA-1696, as outlined in EM-25010. While it is unclear whether SSA intends to expand, discontinue, or otherwise alter their CPAS policy, it’s inclusion in this request is noteworthy.
    • The comment period closes June 16, 2025
    • NOSSCR plans to submit comments

• Improving Performance, Accountability and Responsiveness in the Civil Service
  • “The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing a rule to increase career employee accountability. Agency supervisors report great difficulty removing employees for poor performance or misconduct. The proposed rule lets policy-influencing positions be moved into Schedule Policy/Career. These positions will remain career jobs filled on a nonpartisan basis. Yet they will be at-will positions excepted from adverse action procedures or appeals. This will allow agencies to quickly remove employees from critical positions who engage in misconduct, perform poorly, or undermine the democratic process by intentionally subverting Presidential directives.”
    • The comment period has been extended and now closes on June 7, 2025
    • To date, 26.1K comments have been received (though many represent duplicative form letters)
    • Several former SSA executives signed a letter opposing these proposed changes — you can read that letter below:

• New Emergency Information Collection Tool for the Security Authentication PIN (SAP)
  • “To mitigate fraud concerns, in April 2025, SSA will increase the level of identity proofing needed for customers to make payment method changes during phone interactions. While necessary to protect the public and the integrity of SSA’s programs, this limits the accessibility of the phone as a service channel for claims filed over the phone that will require identity proofing, such as post-entitlement/post-eligibility direct deposit changes, and certain claims which SSA flags as anomalous. To bridge this gap, SSA developed a hybrid identity proofing process called the Security Authentication PIN (SAP) that will provide identity-proofing parity with our online modality, as well as in-person verification. Utilizing the SAP process will provide the necessary identity verification to allow payment method changes to these flagged claims and existing records via phone or in person, while ensuring fraud protection through verification of the identity of the individual prior to accessing or revising their account.”
    • The comment period closed May 9, 2025
    • NOSSCR co-signed the following comments submitted by the Consortium for Constituents with Disabilities, Social Security Disability Task Force:

Legislative Spotlight

Betsy Rosecan, NOSSCR Government Relations Director

On May 7, 2025, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) introduced S. 1666, the Improving Social Security’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act. The bill has nine cosponsors: four Republicans, three Democrats, and two Independents. It has been referred to the Senate Committee on Finance where it awaits further action.

If enacted, this legislation would require the Social Security Administration (SSA) to establish a single point of contact within the agency to assist individuals who become victims of identity theft. The intent of S. 1666 is to resolve identity theft cases more quickly by assigning one agency employee to track an individual’s case to completion and coordinate with other departments inside the agency to do so. NOSSCR supports this bill.

Bill Details

To amend title VII of the Social Security Act to provide for a single point of contact at the Social Security Administration for individuals who are victims of identity theft.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Short title.

This Act may be cited as the “Improving Social Security’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act”.

SEC. 2. Single point of contact for identity theft victims.

(a) In general.—Title VII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 901 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“SEC. 714. Single point of contact for identity theft victims.

“(a) In general.—The Commissioner of Social Security shall establish and implement procedures to ensure that any individual whose social security account number has been misused (such as to fraudulently obtain benefits under title II, VIII, or XVI of this Act, or in a manner that affects an individual’s records at the Social Security Administration, or in a manner that prompts the individual to request a new social security account number) or whose social security card has been lost in the course of transmission to the individual has a single point of contact at the Social Security Administration throughout the resolution of the individual’s case. The single point of contact shall track the individual’s case to completion and coordinate with other units to resolve issues as quickly as possible.

“(b) Single point of contact.—

“(1) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of subsection (a), the single point of contact shall consist of a team or subset of specially trained employees who—

“(A) have the ability to coordinate with other units to resolve the issues involved in the individual’s case, and

“(B) shall be accountable for the case until its resolution.

“(2) TEAM OR SUBSET.—The employees included within the team or subset described in paragraph (1) may change as required to meet the needs of the Social Security Administration, provided that procedures have been established to—

“(A) ensure continuity of records and case history, and

“(B) notify the individual when appropriate.”.

(b) Effective date.—The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

Concerned Congress Questions Customer Service

Since Bisignano’s confirmation, Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle have written to Commissioner Bisignano, expressing their concern about the agency and the ongoing customer service complaints they are receiving from constituents. Read the letters below.

The ImPACt: How Your PAC Donations Shape Social Security Policy

Betsy Rosecan, NOSSCR Government Relations Director

On Thursday, May 15th, I had the opportunity to attend Congressman John Larson’s (D-CT) 16th Annual Bocce Ball Tournament. As you may know, Congressman Larson is the Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means, making him a highly relevant player in legislation related to Social Security.

This event, which I have attended previously, is held on the rooftop of the Venable Building in Northwest D.C. (because the Venable firm has a bocce ball court on its rooftop, and Congressman Larson is a huge fan of the game). If you are unfamiliar with bocce ball, it is a game in which two teams compete to roll spherical balls as close as possible to a smaller target ball. Literally translated to “kiss” in Italian, the game offers an interesting political metaphor in a world where proximity to power often carries the day. I competed on the team led by Congressman Larson’s Chief of Staff. While we didn’t win, it was a rare chance to engage with Congressman Larson and his staff in a relaxed, social environment.

Having attended several Larson fundraising events over the past couple of years (due to Larson’s significant role in the Social Security realm), I was easily recognized by the Congressman and engaged in a helpful conversation with him about his perennial Social Security 2100 legislation. We also discussed the possibility of working together to craft smaller, more targeted legislation to address ongoing issues with the Social Security adjudication process. Sometimes, shorter, more targeted approaches are more effective than the longest and strongest lobs in the game of bocce — and politics.

With the ability to use PAC funds generously contributed by NOSSCR members, NOSSCR can directly engage and forge close relationships with Members of Congress and their staff. These crucial relationships allow us to participate in the conversation when laws or policies that impact NOSSCR members and their clients are considered. Like bocce, politics is a game of strategy and precision, where close relationships are often the deciding factor between winning and losing.

Please consider donating to the NOSSCR PAC so that we can continue to be on the court when it matters most.

Contributions to the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives PAC (NOSSCR PAC) are not tax-deductible as a charitable contribution for federal income tax purposes. Contributions to NOSSCR PAC will be used to support federal and state candidates, political parties, and other political committees. Contributions are strictly voluntary. You may refuse to contribute without reprisal. Any proposed contribution level is merely a suggestion, and you are free to contribute more or less than suggested. You will not benefit or be disadvantaged by reason of the amount of your contribution or a decision not to contribute. Federal law requires NOSSCR PAC to use its best efforts to collect and report the name, mailing address, occupation and employer of persons whose contributions exceed $200 in a calendar year. You must be a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S. to contribute.

PAC Contributor List

THANK YOU TO OUR NOSSCR PAC CONTRIBUTORS

As of May 2025

Daily Dose of Data from SSA

This month, Social Security released the following data:

Monthly Statistical Snapshot, April 2025: “A monthly snapshot of statistics on Social Security beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income recipients.”

SSI Monthly Statistics, April 2025: “These monthly tables provide statistics for federally administered payments and awards under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program.”

Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 1, Includes an article on:

• The COVID Retirement Boom: Did Data Collection Disruption Play a Role? by Daniel Thompson. “Recent research suggests a notable rise in retirements coinciding with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among individuals aged 65–74. This article explores whether this reported increase may be more closely linked to disruptions in the Current Population Survey (CPS) data collection procedures during the pandemic rather than reflecting actual retirement trends. The author examines CPS data collection changes and their effects on survey nonresponse and attrition, and also compares CPS retirement estimates with those from other data sources.”

DI & SSI Program Participants: Characteristics & Employment, 2021: “This chartbook examines the work activity of working-age adult Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) beneficiaries and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients before and after disability award. It covers work activity, employment expectations and characteristics, employment services, and factors affecting employment.”

National Beneficiary Survey: Disability Statistics, 2019: “A publication providing key descriptive statistics from the National Beneficiary Survey, including beneficiary characteristics and health, program and service participation, employment interest and activity, job characteristics, and benefits and employment interaction.”

Estimates of the Financial Effects on Social Security of the “Social Security Enhancement and Protection Act of 2025,” introduced on May 20, 2025 by Representative Gwen Moore.

Useful Resources