2023 State Medical Records Payment Rates Updated

NOSSCR’s list of state medical payment rates has been updated for May, 2023. This list is available to all NOSSCR members.

Many state laws waive or limit the amount medical providers can charge for providing copies of medical records when the request is made in connection with a Social Security disability or SSI claim. Some limits apply to all requests in other states, regardless of purpose, and some states have no limits at all.

This lists provides a state by state breakdown of associated fees for requesting medical records.

To access the list, click here and login to your account.

NOSSCR News – May, 2023

Learn more about NOSSCR operations and get a peek at upcoming programs and initiatives.

2023 Annual Conference

Thank you to everyone who attended the 2023 Annual Conference in Washington, DC—the new home of NOSSCR! The event was a huge success, drawing more than 900 attendees from across the nation.

During the conference, NOSSCR bestowed Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) with the Mental Health Leadership Award as a thank you for her longtime dedication toward supporting access to mental and behavioral health care.

NOSSCR also thanked her for protecting the Social Security program and for advancing key NOSSCR initiatives. And, during her keynote, the Senator announced she would be introducing a new version of the We Can’t Wait Act, which would provide a pathway for Social Security disability beneficiaries to escape the five-month waiting period. To learn more about We Can’t Wait, visit the coalition website here.

The Conference also featured an update from Deputy Chief ALJ Chris Dillon, Assistant Deputy Commissioner Florence Lawson, and Acting Assistant Deputy Commissioner Jim Parikh. The three officials answered questions about existing policies at SSA and also provided insights into potential changes coming from the agency down the line.

Conference attendees had ample opportunity to acquire CLE, with most states approving about 16 total credits for attendees. Topics ranged from best practices for questioning vocational experts to tips on running a firm to advice on navigating thorny ethical issues.

Finally, the Conference provided a chance for attendees to reconnect with old colleagues—and build new connections. Built in free time and supplemental events such as the Tom Scully Award Dinner, NextGen Reception and Women Wine Down provided attendees a chance to gather with other claimant representatives from across the nation. And—due to strong demand—NOSSCR plans to expand these events and offer additional networking opportunities in the future.

Be sure to check out your colleagues’ thoughts on the conference by searching for #NOSSCR2023 on social media sites.

NOSSCR Code of Conduct Policy

NOSSCR recognizes that we owe all of our conference attendees a safe and welcoming environment at our events. While the Conference was a major success, some attendees were subjected to harassing behavior.  We are going to do all we can to educate membership and work to eliminate this conduct in the future.

NOSSCR CEO Steve Gardner has begun working with the Executive Committee on a NOSSCR Code of Conduct to submit to the Board of Directors; this Code of Conduct will be in place for all future NOSSCR events.

NOSSCR is also creating systems for people to safely report inappropriate conduct.

A Bittersweet Goodbye to Lea Robbins

It’s with a heavy heart and deeply conflicted feelings we announce that NOSSCR Senior Staff Attorney Lea Robbins will be moving on from NOSSCR in early June. She has accepted a position with the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS), where she will no doubt excel and thrive.

Lea has been at NOSSCR for seven years and was instrumental in the transition to Washington. During that time, Lea stepped up in every way imaginable: managing member requests, writing The Forum, teaching and training new staff members, and serving as a steady presence for all us here at NOSSCR. And all of this came on top of her own day-to-day responsibilities.

The entire team will deeply miss Lea, but we are all excited and thrilled for her as she moves on to this new opportunity. Her last day will be June 9.

STATEMENT: Federal Courts Find Social Security’s Adjudication Process Flawed

May 26, 2023 – Washington, DC.— Lisa Rein’s Washington Post story, “Federal Judges Find Fault with Majority of Social Security Disability Appeals,” is a heartbreaking indictment of America’s largest disability adjudication system.

Americans turn to the Social Security Administration to access their benefits at the worst moment of their lives — when a debilitating injury or illness removes them from the workforce. The bureaucracy faced by Social Security claimants and their families is daunting.

And, as this article shows, the system is tilted against them despite court orders demanding correction. After years of appeals, an absurdly high percentage of court reviews confirm that the Agency’s findings continue to be rushed and legally insufficient.

NOSSCR supports common sense solutions to help those with disabilities so severe that they can no longer work. NOSSCR supports the “We Can’t Wait” legislative effort to remedy the harmful five-month waiting period that SSDI claimants must endure. For years NOSSCR has pushed SSA to modernize. Obvious solutions such as answering phones, using modern health care information technology, and eliminating the use of occupational data from the 1970s are overdue.

And, as the Washington Post highlights, the disability appeals process fails to respond to reasoned federal court rulings—causing needless inefficiency and years-long delays for those who qualify.

This story spotlights a struggling system. NOSSCR stands ready to work with Capitol Hill and the Social Security Administration to improve the disability adjudication process.

ABOUT NOSSCR

The National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR) is the largest community of advocates for Social Security claimants in the nation. NOSSCR and its members advocate for improvements in Social Security disability programs and work to ensure fair representation for all claimants. To learn more, visit https://nosscr.org.

Proposed Rule Changes to the Manner of Appearance at Hearings Published

SSA’s proposed changes regarding the “Manner of Appearance at Hearings” has been published in the Federal Register. The text of the proposed rule is available here or downloadable below.

SSA is proposing these rule changes, in part, to accommodate the additional hearing modalities that were offered during the pandemic. NOSSCR will submit comments and provide a thorough analysis, along with talking points for inclusion in your own comments, at a later date. However, given the significance of these rules, we wanted to make you aware of them as soon as possible.

Download Proposed Rule

OHO Issues Two New CJBs

OHO has issued two new Chief Judge Bulletins (CJB).

CJB 23-01: Hearing Appearances by Telephone and Online Video

This CJB clarifies that all OHO offices will continue scheduling telephone and online video hearings, despite the official end of the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE) on May 11, 2023. The bulletin also provides additional guidelines and procedures for telephone and online video hearings.

The guidance reiterates that OHO will generally not schedule a telephone hearing unless the party agrees to that hearing method, but notes the limited circumstances that may lead to an exception, which are set forth in the regulations. The guidance also reiterates that OHO will only schedule online video hearings if claimants and their representatives both agree to that manner of appearance.

For parties that can’t be reached or do not agree to appear by telephone or online video, OHO will schedule in-person or VTC hearing. The bulletin notes that a party does not have a right object to an in-person hearing.

Additionally, the bulletin restates the consent process for telephone or online video appearances and lays out the procedure that representatives must follow to properly document consent.

The bulletin provides a reminder on additional procedures for recognizing a representative when a proper written notice of appointment has not been submitted and restates accommodations for claimants who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Read the full CJB here.

CJB 23-02: Processing Failure to Appear and Untimely Filed Hearing Request Dismissals

This CJB establishes procedures for determining when to apply modified or standard procedures when issuing Untimely Filed Hearing Request Dismissals and Failure to Appear Dismissals now that the COVID-19 PHE has expired.

The guidance notes that OHO can only issue a Failure to Appear Dismissal when a claimant fails to appear for a telephone or online hearing if the office has properly documented consent for a telephone or online video hearing.

The bulletin also asserts OHO will follow all Notice of Hearings (NOH) and Standard Contact Procedures outlined in regulations and HALLEX. It also provides a breakdown on Request to Show Cause procedures, based on when paperwork was received by the hearing office.

Finally, the guidance lays out procedures for when a NOH is marked undeliverable by the postal service, reasserts In-Line Quality Review for Failure to Appear and Untimely Filing Dismissals, and rescinds certain good cause provisions outlined previous in CJB 22-03.

Read the full CJB here.

Revised EM on Evaluating Evidence in Cases Involving the Musculoskeletal Disorders Listings

SSA issued EM-21027 REV 2 on May 12, 2023 “to include guidance related to the end of the COVID-19 national public health emergency on May 11, 2023.” Specifically, the EM explains that Temporary Final Rule (TFR) that provides for flexibility in evaluating the “close proximity of time” requirement in the musculoskeletal disorders listings will expire on November 11, 2023, unless extended by a final rule published in the Federal Register.

The TFR on “Flexibility in Evaluating ‘Close Proximity of Time’ Due to COVID-19 Related Barriers to Healthcare,”86 Fed. Reg. 38920 (July 23, 2021), available here, was issued to address the widespread barriers to health care that many experienced during the pandemic:

“Since the outset of the COVID-19 national public health emergency, many individuals have experienced barriers that prevent them from timely accessing healthcare. In response to those barriers, we are issuing this rule to temporarily revise our requirement in the Listing of Impairments (listings) that, for purposes of applying several of our musculoskeletal disorder listings, all relevant medical criteria be present simultaneously or “within a close proximity of time,” which we define as being “within a consecutive 4-month period.” While this rule is in effect, we will find that the evidence of a musculoskeletal disorder is present “within a close proximity of time” if the available evidence establishes such a condition within a consecutive 12-month period. We expect that this temporary change to our rules will allow us to make findings of disability in appropriate cases in which individuals have experienced barriers to access to healthcare because of the COVID-19 national public health emergency.”

PIEMONTE’S PERSPECTIVE: The Meaning of “Moderate”

Have you noticed that when the ALJ says something is moderately limited or the claimant has “moderate” limitation in X the VE has no problem providing jobs but if you use the qualifier “moderate” in your cross-examination they more often than not will say something like, “I don’t know what ‘moderate’ means.”

Either moderate means something or it does not. The same is true with any other term. You always want to get definitions of terms in the ALJ’s questions and in the VE’s answers.

So, how do you deal with “moderate” only having meaning if the ALJ uses it? The best time to deal with it is before the hearing, obtaining medical opinions with specific limitations (using numbers or percentages).

Define limitations more specifically with testimony by the claimant and witnesses. With a difficult ALJ, do not hesitate to bring multiple witnesses. But be sure they will all say different, relevant things.

Ask the VE when the percentage of sub-standard work becomes significant to employers. Then assume that “moderate” means 1 percent more than that.

But you will be much better off trying to obtain specific number/percentage limitations from the claimant’s treating sources. The more specific (supported by the evidence) you can be in your cross examination the more effective your cross examination will be.

Initial Processing Time (Feb. 2023)

Below is a break down of the initial processing time, as of February 24, 2023.

National Total

Boston Region

New York Region

Philadelphia Region

Atlanta Region

Chicago Region

Dallas Region

Kansas City Region

Denver Region

San Francisco Region

Seattle Region

Reconsideration Processing Time (Feb 2023)

Below is a break down of the reconsideration processing time, as of February 24, 2023.

National Total

Boston Region

New York Region

Philadelphia Region

Atlanta Region

Chicago Region

Dallas Region

Kansas City Region

Denver Region

San Francisco Region

Seattle Region

CASELAW UPDATE: What’s Happening in the 7th Circuit – April 2023 Edition

April was a quiet month in the Seventh Circuit. The Court issued one unpublished affirmation in a case involving a pro se claimant:

Sanders v. Kijakazi (affirmed, unpublished)

Judges Easterbrook, Wood, and Kirsch

Apr. 18, 2023

Sanders, a nurse, injured his shoulder at work and underwent surgery before returning to his job six months later. There was evidence of earnings during the next nine months until he contracted COVID-19, after which a psychiatrist opined that the pandemic worsened Sanders’ anxiety and depression and that he should either be on leave or work away from his employer’s COVID-19 isolation unit. Sanders left his job. An ALJ found that Sanders’ post-surgery work was disqualifying SGA and that he was otherwise not disabled at Step Five with a reduced light RFC.

Before the Seventh Circuit, Sanders argued that the District Court should have appointed an attorney for him. 28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(1) states that a court “may” ask an attorney to represent an indigent person. The Seventh Circuit agreed that the District Court’s denial of counsel was reasonable where it was based on Sanders’ college education, intellectual abilities, and familiarity with his record.

Otherwise, Sanders argued that his post-surgery earnings resulted from an unsuccessful work attempt, alleging that he stopped working earlier than his earnings suggested. The Court held that it was Sanders’ burden to furnish evidence that he stopped working earlier and that he did not do so. And Sanders challenged the ALJ’s light RFC as inadequately restrictive, but the Court noted that Sanders’ surgeon released him back to work and that Sanders’ statements about his abilities were consistent with the RFC.

Thanks for reading!

Ryan Tank
ryantank@spectorandlenz.com
Spector & Lenz, P.C.
Chicago, IL

Legislative Spotlight: The Social Security Fairness Act of 2023

The Social Security Fairness Act of 2023 (H.R. 82) was introduced by Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA) and Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) on January 9, 2023. Its companion bill (S. 597) was introduced by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on March 1, 2023. NOSSCR has endorsed this bill.

H.R. 82 has 263 cosponsors, 187 of whom are Democrats and 76 of whom are Republicans. S. 597 has 44 cosponsors, 36 of whom are Democrats, 5 of whom are Republicans, and 3 of whom are independents.

This legislation, which has been introduced in previous Congresses, would eliminate the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP). GPO reduces Social Security spousal benefits for those who receive retirement benefits from a federal, state, or local government. WEP reduces Social Security benefits for beneficiaries who receive a pension from an organization that did not withhold Social Security taxes from that individual’s paychecks.

If passed, the bill would impact benefits payable after December 2023. In the 117^th Congress, similar legislation advanced out of committee but did not reach the floor for a vote despite garnering the support of more than 300 cosponsors in the House of Representatives.

Bill Details

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET PROVISION.

(a) In General.—Section 202(k) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(k)) is amended by striking paragraph (5).

(b) Conforming Amendments.—

(1) Section 202(b)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(2)) is amended by striking “subsections (k)(5) and (q)” and inserting “subsection (q)”.

(2) Section 202(c)(2) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)) is amended by striking “subsections (k)(5) and (q)” and inserting “subsection (q)”.

(3) Section 202(e)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(2)(A)) is amended by striking “subsection (k)(5), subsection (q),” and inserting “subsection (q)”.

(4) Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking “subsection (k)(5), subsection (q)” and inserting “subsection (q)”.

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF WINDFALL ELIMINATION PROVISIONS.

(a) In General.—Section 215 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415) is amended—

(1) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (7);

(2) in subsection (d), by striking paragraph (3); and

(3) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (9).

(b) Conforming Amendments.—Subsections (e)(2) and (f)(2) of section 202 of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402) are each amended by striking “section 215(f)(5), 215(f)(6), or 215(f)(9)(B)” in subparagraphs (C) and (D)(i) and inserting “paragraph (5) or (6) of section 215(f)”.

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.

The amendments made by this Act shall apply with respect to monthly insurance benefits payable under title II of the Social Security Act for months after December 2023. Notwithstanding section 215(f) of the Social Security Act, the Commissioner of Social Security shall adjust primary insurance amounts to the extent necessary to take into account the amendments made by section 3.

Evaluations of Migraines and Carpal Tunnel

Function-by-Function Mascio Deficiencies, Specific Vocational Prep (SVP) Time and Reasoning Level Contradictions

In Kelly W. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:22-cv-1483, (Dist. of Md, April 17, 2023), after filing an extensive brief on various issues pertaining to legal and factual errors and substantial evidence, the Commissioner agreed to a Voluntary Remand under Sentence 4 of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

One area of focus in the issues leading to the voluntary remand pertained to the ALJ’s improper evaluation of the claimant’s well-documented chronic migraine headaches and carpal tunnel syndrome, all of which were supported by substantial medical evidence and non-medical evidence (including claimant’s headache journal showing more than 15 migraines in a 30-day period, all requiring medication and extensive rest in a dark, quiet location), and the reasoning and case law cited to was similar to that in the matter of Crystal T. v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. (as featured in the March 2023 Forum).

Another area of focus in this brief which was a major factor in the remand decision was an argument pertaining to SVP and Reasoning Level Contradictions by the ALJ and the VE. Specifically, the ALJ’s RFC findings that the claimant would not be capable of performing more than simple, routine, repetitive tasks was consistent with SVP 2, Reasoning Level 1 jobs only, as the District Court of Md. and the Fourth Circuit had previously determined in case law cited to in the brief and per Appendix C of the DOT. The ALJ’s RFC limitations clearly comport directly with the Reasoning Level 1 definition in the DOT, i.e. “Apply commonsense understanding to carry out simple one- or two-step instructions. Deal with standardized situations with occasional or no variables in or from these situations encountered on the job;” only one of the VE’s representative job titles was consistent with Reasoning Level 1 but not in significant numbers hence negating the Step 5 finding.

Also of note was the ALJ’s failure to adequately consider or even address the uncontroverted finding that the claimant had previously been determined to be totally disabled and entitled to receive full long-term disability benefits through her former employer, based on the same severe impairments and medical evidence of record, noting that per relevant Fourth Circuit case law, an ALJ’s failure to note, discuss or evaluate disability from another governmental agency is reversible error, as is failing to develop the record and obtain the medical documentation from the long-term disability carrier.

Finally, the ALJ’s decision contained numerous instances of improperly cherry picking favorable evidence and improperly playing doctor, thus failing to build an accurate and logical bridge from the evidence to the ultimate findings and conclusions, failure to properly apply the treating physicians rule in light of highly supportive and consistent longitudinal evidence from established treating providers, and also failed to perform a function-by-function analysis of time off task in light of the symptoms from migraines,
carpal tunnel and other physical impairments, as well as mental health impairments leading to findings of moderate limitations in Concentration, Persistence and Pace as required under the 4th Circuit’s ruling in the Mascio case.

The case was briefed by Andrew Sindler of Severna Park, MD.

Update on Health IT at SSA

SSA’s HIT initiative is an electronic records transmission program that allows SSA to request and obtain medical records from participating providers instantaneously at no cost to the claimant or representative. While only agency staff can currently utilize HIT directly, NOSSCR is working on getting HIT expanded to representatives and ensuring that HIT is utilized whenever possible to obtain records, which saves times, reduces costs to claimants and representatives, and ensures the record is complete. For these reasons, this is a top priority for NOSSCR.

As a direct result of our efforts, we’ve convinced OHO to add a functionality so that HIT requests are automated at the hearing level (i.e. when a request for hearing is filed, HIT requests are made automatically like they are at the DDS level). This automated HIT trigger was implemented in February 2023 for every new case received at OHO. We have also confirmed with SSA and OHO leadership that OHO staff should be making updated HIT requests during case workup in all cases, regardless of whether the claimant is represented or unrepresented, and that the automated HIT trigger does not preclude use of the manner trigger to generate subsequent HIT requests. 

We hope this will ensure HIT is being utilized more consistently while we continue to advocate for the expansion of HIT to the representative community.

A list of participating HIT providers can be viewed here.  Below is a factsheet on HIT provided by SSA.

Health IT (HIT) at SSA

Overview

• Medical Evidence Gathering & Analysis through Health IT (MEGAHIT) is the system that provides an automated approach to request, pay, and process electronic medical evidence from participating Health IT (HIT) partners for all adjudicative levels with the presence of a valid authorization to disclose information to the Social Security Administration (SSA-827).
• We have 228 HIT partners in 50 states, DC, and five U.S. territories representing more than 35,300 provider facilities.
• When a case with a participating HIT provider is transmitted from the field office to the Disability Determination Service (DDS) or Hearing Office, an automated request reaches the medical provider and if evidence is available, it is in the case by the time it reaches the DDS.
• Additionally, users at all adjudicative levels can initiate a user-triggered request for records via HIT for additional, updated medical records.
• Adjudicators receive decision support through business rules mapping specific diagnostic and procedure codes to SSA’s medical listing of impairments.
• MEGAHIT’s automated fiscal process (Pay4HIT) pays providers the national rate of $15 for every response generating HIT MER received via HIT.  We automatically generate invoices for SSA’s financial offices, the Department of Treasury (DOT), and provider statements.  This enables DOT to make more timely payments to providers who respond to our request for medical records through HIT. 

Benefits

• HIT provides SSA adjudicators a standardized format and display of medical evidence.
• HIT provides structured data to aid decision support and quality assurance to examiners through intelligent analysis via business rules.
• Faster records receipt and a standardized display of records leads to more efficient case processing:
  • On average, cases with HIT Medical Evidence of Record (MER) processed 9.9% faster than those without.
  • Cases with only HIT MER processed 43.7% faster.
  • Records are received in seconds to minutes, instead of days to weeks such as when requesting via traditional methods of fax or mail.
• Less burdensome for medical providers to respond to SSA requests as compared to channels that require manual actions

National Hearing Center Contact Information

OHO has provided the following direct contact information for the NHCs. General phone numbers are listed for each NHC on SSA’s Hearing Office Locator website (www.ssa.gov/appeals/ho_locator.html) but you can utilize the specific contacts below if you are unable to get through when calling the main line. Please note that the Baltimore NHC specifically has experienced challenges with their phone coverage, but those issues are being addressed now.

CASE ANALYSIS: SGA and CDB/DAC Benefits

Practitioners may wish to note the recent decision in Mason v. Commissioner, Western District of Michigan Case No.: 1:21-cv-616, decided August 8, 2022. This case involves issues that are rare to most practitioners, but nevertheless should be in our minds.

More specifically, Plaintiff was a person who suffered from a life-long impairment, but nevertheless was intellectually brilliant and ended up finishing college and then going to graduate school in the field of geology. Unfortunately, she had been unable to fulfill the duties of her master’s degree program, and while she ultimately received her master’s degree, she really had not finished the course of study.

What helped a great deal in this case is that one of her former professors was willing to testify at her hearing that Plaintiff received accommodations, but she nevertheless had struggled to complete her requirements and independent study. He acknowledged the fact that school could have removed her graduate student stipend, but instead the facility did its best to accommodate her. He described her as performing 50 percent of the productivity of a typical master’s level student.

While the ALJ had found that Plaintiff in an (allegedly) Fully Favorable Decision was entitled to SSI Benefits, she went on to find that 50 percent of what Plaintiff had earned as a graduate student was slightly over the requirements for substantial gainful activity (SGA) for two years; for example, in one year, her average income was $87.59 per month over the SGA level for that year. As a result, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was disqualified from receiving Child Disability Benefits (CDB) [formerly known as Disabled Adult Child Benefits (DAC)].

Fortunately, the Magistrate overturned that ruling. In doing so, she relied upon the Sixth Circuit precedent of Cardew v. Commissioner of Social Security, 896 F.3d 742 (6^th Cir. 2018). Cardew specifically indicated that simply applying the SGA earnings standards without considering whether there were special conditions involved with the work in question was contrary to the applicable regulation and that the ALJ in Mason had used an incomplete and overly rigid framework. Following the remand, Plaintiff was awarded CDB Benefits without a hearing.

CDB claims may be lurking in more cases than we think, and, since in most of these cases, an SSI application has been filed, that also amounts to a CDB application. Obviously, you may wish to highlight that to the Social Security Administration or else urge your client to file an application for CDB if there has not been an SSI filing.

Read the decision here.

House Social Security Subcommittee Holds First Hearing of 118th Congress

On April 26, 2023, House Republicans held their first hearing of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee. The hearing, titled “Social Security Fundamentals: A Fact-Based Foundation,” was chaired by Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-GA) and included three witnesses: Dr. Phillip Swagel (Director of Congressional Budget Office), Stephen Goss (Chief Actuary of the Social Security Administration), and Barry Huston (analyst with the Congressional Research Service).

NOSSCR’s government affairs staff was present at the hearing, which primarily focused on the health of Social Security’s trust fund. Democrats pressed their Republican colleagues on proposals by some within the GOP that would amend the program to, among other things, increase the retirement age or implement a more conservative Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) formula.

At one point, Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) criticized Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) for referring to Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” In response, Chairman Ferguson said, “the Senator from Wisconsin will not be taking a vote on this subcommittee.” Further, Chairman Ferguson attempted to reassure his Democratic colleagues by saying, “I would like to put your minds at ease: you won’t have to worry about voting on the Republican Study Committee plan on this subcommittee.”

In his comments, Goss explained that, without Congressional action, “combined reserves for the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2034” (Dr. Swagel stated that the Congressional Budget Office projected the combined reserves would be depleted by 2033). Goss went on to say that, in order to avoid this outcome, Congress would have to take steps to raise future scheduled revenue by about one-third, reduce scheduled benefits by one-fourth, or agree on a combination of those two changes.

Among the options identified in the hearing to raise revenue for the program were increasing the payroll wage cap and increasing immigration. Both Goss and Swagel confirmed that increasing the level of legal immigration would have a positive impact on the health of the Social Security program. According to Swagel, “increased immigration would increase the size of the economy, increase the size of payrolls, and improve the financial status of Social Security.” Goss added, “it [immigration] would unequivocally improve the financial status of Social Security.”

The next hearing of the House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee is scheduled for May 24, 2023.

ARS Enhancement- Fee Petition Document Type

After many months of advocacy, NOSSCR is pleased to share that Fee Petitions were added to the list of document types available for upload via ERE/ARS as of April 17, 2023.

While representatives have access to the eFolder after case closure, they are not able to upload documents directly from the eFolder using “Upload New File” after case closure. At case closure the cases are routed internally to sites that are not enabled for ERE uploads (i.e., Field Offices, Payment Centers).

Therefore, in order to utilize this enhancement and submit a fee petition electronically after a decision is issued, representatives should request a barcode and upload the fee petition by using “Send Individual Response” within ERE/ARS. The barcode contains the information necessary to route the case to the correct eFolder and notify the appropriate hearing office that the document has been received into the eFolder. This will provide for easier verification of submissions and is an early step in the creation of tracking systems.

NOSSCR continues to advocate for improvements to ERE/ARS to help streamline processes and reduce delays in the authorization of fee petitions at OHO, which we have recently made significant progress on.

Useful Resources – May, 2023