| Statement of Robert E. Robertson, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues,
U.S. Government Accountability Office Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Social Security of the House Committee on Ways and Means June 15, 2006 Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me today to discuss stakeholder
concerns about various aspects of the Social Security Administration’s (SSA)
new Disability Service Improvement process (DSI) and the steps that SSA has taken
to address these concerns. SSA is preparing to implement its new process first in
its Boston region for at least 1 year beginning in August 2006.
In July 2005, SSA issued a notice of proposed rule making
to obtain public comment on DSI proposals that would fundamentally redesign the
way claims for disability benefits are processed and considered, with the
purpose of improving the accuracy, consistency and fairness of its disability
decisions, and making correct decisions earlier in the process. After reviewing
comments submitted in response to its notice, SSA issued its final rule in
March 2006, codifying many of its proposed changes. One of the many changes
envisioned under DSI is the elimination of the Appeals Council, which had
afforded claimants the ability to appeal unfavorable decisions made by
administrative law judges (ALJ) to SSA before filing suit with a federal court.
Once DSI is fully implemented, decisions made by the ALJs become the final
agency decision, unless they are selected for review by a new Decision Review
Board. The cases selected for review will be those identified through use of a
statistical model as claims that are complex or prone to erroneous decisions. As
you know, many have expressed concern over the elimination of the Appeals
Council as a forum that claimants could avail themselves of before resorting to
a federal court.
The information I am providing today is based on work that
we conducted between February 22, 2006, and June 2, 2006, as part of ongoing work in this area, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. I will be discussing (1) concerns raised about the
replacement of the Appeals Council with the Decision Review Board and how SSA has
responded to them, and (2) steps SSA has taken to help facilitate a smooth
implementation of the DSI process.
To conduct our work, we reviewed a large sample (252 in
total) of the comment letters that were submitted by the public in response to
SSA’s notice of proposed rule making and that focused on the replacement of the
Appeals Council with the Decision Review Board. In addition, we interviewed 10
stakeholder groups—such as claimant representatives, employee groups, and
disability advocacy organizations that SSA has previously consulted with—to
learn more about their perspectives on the elimination of the Appeals Council
as well as on the near-term rollout of the DSI process in the Boston region. In
addition, we conducted extensive interviews with SSA officials and reviewed
available agency documents to determine their position on and collect data
relevant to eliminating the Appeals Council, as well as their efforts and plans
related to DSI implementation. Further, we reviewed our past reports on
improving SSA’s disability process in a number of areas, including human
capital; its electronic records system—known as eDib; quality assurance; and
implementing change and managing for success. For a more detailed description
of our methodology, please see appendix I.
In summary, we found that the public and stakeholders
expressed two overriding concerns regarding the replacement of the Appeals
Council with the Decision Review board—that the workload of the federal courts
will rise if the council is eliminated and that this change will present
additional hardship for claimants. In our review of the comment letters
submitted to SSA that specifically addressed the elimination of the Appeals
Council, we found that about half expressed concern that petitions to federal
courts would rise, given the council’s termination, and that claimants would
lose an additional level of administrative review. About 40 percent of comments
highlighted recent improvements in the Appeals Council’s processes and noted
that eliminating the council would not improve adjudication. Stakeholder groups
we spoke with basically underscored these same two points—that eliminating the
Appeals Council would result in an increase in disability claims cases that are
appealed in federal district courts and that some claimants may drop
meritorious claims rather than pursue a seemingly complicated and intimidating
federal court appeal. Acknowledging these concerns, SSA contends that DSI will
improve decision making earlier in the process, decrease the time it takes the
agency to reach a final decision, and reduce the need for appeal. SSA also
maintains that because DSI affords claimants the right to appeal their initially
denied claims to reviewing officials who are now centrally managed, claimants
will not experience an overall loss in administrative review at the federal
level. At the same time, both stakeholders and SSA believe it will be important
for the agency to closely monitor DSI in order to evaluate its impact on
claimants and the courts.
SSA has made substantial preparation for DSI on all fronts
related to successful implementation—human capital, technical infrastructure,
and quality assurance. However, the timetable is ambitious and much work
remains. While stakeholders have expressed concern that SSA will not be able to
hire and sufficiently train staff in time for the new process to get under way,
we found that the agency has, to date, posted hiring announcements for new
positions and developed training packages for onboard staff. SSA is also taking
steps, as we had previously recommended, to ensure that key technical supports,
particularly the electronic disability system known as eDib, are in place for
Boston staff to adjudicate claims under the new process. At the same time, the
agency has allowed itself very little time to identify and resolve any
potential glitches that may arise before the Boston rollout in August. Regarding
quality assurance, SSA has taken several steps to lay a foundation for a more
cohesive program, as we had recommended in our earlier reports. For example,
features of the new DSI process—including centralizing quality assurance
reviews of initial state disability determination service (DDS) decisions,
establishing a Decision Review Board for hearing decisions, and developing several
tools to aid decision writing—may address problems with decisional consistency
that we have identified in the past by allowing for a cohesive analysis of
decisions. In addition, SSA officials plan to monitor and evaluate the
execution of the Boston rollout, although some performance measures for this
initiative, such as for assessing a new medical expert system that is part of
DSI, are still unclear to us, and mechanisms for delivering feedback to staff
on the clarity and soundness of their decision writing have not yet been fully
developed. Finally, SSA is undertaking other, broad steps that we consider
consistent with effective change management strategies that we have previously
recommended. For example, the decision to implement the new system first on a
small scale—that is, in one small region—before introducing it elsewhere should
allow for careful integration of the new systems and staff and for working out
problems before they become serious impediments to success. Additionally, SSA
has employed a proactive, collaborative approach with the stakeholder community
in both designing and implementing the new disability determination process.
Background
SSA operates the Disability Insurance (DI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) programs—the two largest federal programs
providing cash benefits to people with disabilities. The law defines disability
for both programs as the inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of a severe physical or mental impairment that is medically
determinable and is expected to last at least 12 months or result in death. In
fiscal year 2005, the agency made payments of approximately $126 billion to about 12.8 million beneficiaries and their families. We have conducted
a number of reviews of SSA’s disability programs over the past decade, and the
agency’s management difficulties were a significant reason why we added
modernizing federal disability programs to our high-risk list in 2003. In
particular, SSA’s challenges include the lengthy time the agency takes to
process disability applications and concerns regarding inconsistencies in
disability decisions across adjudication levels and locations that raise
questions about the fairness, integrity, and cost of these programs.
The process SSA uses to determine that a claimant meets
eligibility criteria—the disability determination process—is complex, involving
more than one office and often more than one decision maker. Under the current
structure—that is, DSI notwithstanding—the process begins at an SSA field
office, where an SSA representative determines whether a claimant meets the
programs’ nonmedical eligibility criteria. Claims meeting these criteria are
forwarded to a DDS to determine if a claimant meets the medical eligibility
criteria. At the DDS, the disability examiner and the medical or psychological
consultants work as a team to analyze a claimant’s documentation, gather
additional evidence as appropriate, and approve or deny the claim. A denied
claimant may ask the DDS to review the claim again—a step in the process known
as reconsideration. If the denied claim is upheld, a claimant may pursue an
appeal with an ALJ, who will review the case. At this step, the ALJ usually
conducts a hearing in which the claimant and others may testify and present new
evidence. In making the disability decision, the ALJ considers information from
the hearing and from the DDS, including the findings of the DDS’s medical
consultant. If the claimant is not satisfied with the ALJ decision, the
claimant may request a review by SSA’s Appeals Council, which is the final
administrative appeal within SSA. If denied again, the claimant may file suit
in federal court.
In March
2006, SSA published a final rule to establish DSI, which is intended to improve
the accuracy, consistency, and fairness of decision making and to make correct
decisions as early in the process as possible. While DDSs will continue to make
the initial determination, claims with a high potential for a fully favorable
decision will be referred to a new Quick Disability Determination (QDD)
process. If the claimant is dissatisfied with
the DDS’s initial determination or QDD, the claimant may now request a review
by a federal reviewing official—a new position to be staffed by centrally
managed attorneys. The federal reviewing official replaces the reconsideration
step at the DDS level, and creates a new level of federal review earlier in the
process. The claimant’s right to request a hearing before an ALJ remains
unchanged. However, the Appeals Council is eliminated under the new process,
and as a result the ALJ’s decision becomes the final agency decision except in
cases where the claim is referred to the new Decision Review Board. Claims with
a high likelihood of error, or involving new areas of policy, rules, or
procedures, are candidates for board review. [1] If
the board issues a new decision, it becomes the final agency decision. As
before, claimants dissatisfied with the final agency decision may seek judicial
review in federal court. DSI also includes the introduction of new
decision-writing tools that will be used at each adjudication level, and are
intended to streamline decision making and facilitate training and feedback to
staff. In addition, SSA is creating a Medical and Vocational Expert System,
staffed by a unit of nurse case managers who will oversee a national network of
medical, psychological, and vocational experts, which are together responsible
for assisting adjudicators in identifying and obtaining needed expertise. In
its final rule, SSA indicated that DSI will further be supported by
improvements, such as a new electronic disability system and an integrated,
more comprehensive quality system.
As noted, the changes introduced by DSI were codified in
SSA’s final rule on the subject. Table 1 highlights these new features and
associated elements.
Table 1: Key Aspects of DSI
New feature |
Associated elements |
Quick Disability Determinations |
Expedited processing for certain clear-cut cases. |
Use of a predictive model to screen for cases that
have a greater likelihood of allowance and to act on those claims within 20
days. |
Nationally standardized training for examiners in DDS
on this process. |
Medical or psychological experts must verify that the
medical evidence is sufficient to determine that the impairment meets the
standards. |
Medical and Vocational Expert System |
A national network of medical, psychological, and
vocational experts who will be available to assist adjudicators throughout
the agency. |
The national network will be overseen by a new
Medical and Vocational Expert Unit. |
All experts affiliated with the network must meet
qualifications, which are still under development. |
Federal reviewing officials |
A cadre of federal reviewing officials—all
attorneys—can affirm, reverse, or modify appealed DDS decisions. Federal
reviewing officials cannot remand cases to the DDSs for further review, but
they can ask that the DDSs provide clarification or additional information
for the basis of their determination. |
Reviewing officials may obtain new evidence and
claimants can submit additional evidence at this stage. If necessary, the
reviewing official may issue subpoenas for documents. |
If a reviewing official disagrees with the DDS
decision, or if new evidence is submitted, he or she must consult with an
expert in the expert system. |
Decision Review Board |
The Decision Review Board will replace the Appeals
Council. It will be composed of individuals selected by SSA’s Commissioner,
and each member will serve a designated term. |
The board will review both allowances and denials,
and the board has the ability to affirm, modify, reverse, or remand ALJ
decisions. |
A new sampling procedure—or predictive model—will
identify ALJ decisions that are error-prone or complex for the board’s
review. The predictive model, which is still under development, is expected
to select 10 to 20 percent of ALJ decisions for the board’s review. |
The board has 90 days from the date the claimant
receives notice of board review to make its final decision. If it fails to
act within that period, the ALJ decision remains SSA’s final decision.
|
A claimant may submit a written statement to the
board within 10 days of receiving notice that the board will review his or
her case, explaining why he or she agrees or disagrees with the ALJ’s
decision. This statement may be no longer than 2,000 words. |
Source: GAO analysis.
Note: While DSI does not change the structure or scope of
ALJ reviews, the new process has several elements that affect hearings at the
ALJ level. Namely, SSA will notify claimants at least 75 days prior to the
hearing of the date and time for which the hearing has been scheduled. Additionally,
claimants have to submit evidence at least 5 business days before the hearing
date itself.
Implementation of DSI will begin on August 1, 2006, in the Boston region, which includes the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont.[2] Therefore,
only those claims filed with SSA in the Boston region on or after August 1 will
be subject to the new process.[3] All
claims currently in process in the Boston region, and claims filed elsewhere, will
continue to be handled under current procedural regulations until SSA takes
further action.[4] In
addition, for cases filed in the Boston region during the first year of DSI
implementation, all ALJ decisions—both allowances and disallowances—will be
reviewed by a new Decision Review Board with authority to affirm, modify,
reverse, or remand decisions to the ALJ.[5] Since
DSI will only affect new claims initiated in the Boston region, claimants whose
cases were already in process before August—as well as those filing outside the
Boston region—will still have access to the Appeals Council.
Concerns Include Fear of
Increased Court and Claimant Hardship, while SSA Believes Its New Process
Will Reduce the Need for Appeal
In their written comments to SSA and discussions with us,
public and stakeholder groups, such as claimant representatives and disability
advocacy groups, expressed two broad areas of concern regarding the replacement
of the Appeals Council with the Decision Review Board: (1) potential for increasing the workload of the federal courts and
(2) anticipated hardship for claimants in terms of loss of an administrative
appeal level and difficulties associated with pursuing their claims in federal
court. SSA’s response to concerns regarding the federal court workload is that
all changes associated with new DSI process—taken together—should reduce the
need for appeal to the federal courts. At the same time, SSA plans to implement
this final step gradually and with additional safeguards to minimize the impact
on the courts. In response to concerns about the loss of appeal rights, SSA
contends that under the new DSI process, claimants will have a new level of
federal review earlier in the process, and should experience a decline in the
amount of time it takes to receive a final agency decision without being overly
burdened by the Decision Review Board under the new process.
Public and Stakeholders
Anticipate a Larger Caseload for Courts, while SSA Maintains That Better
Decisions Earlier in the Process Will Reduce the Need for Appeal
Concerns expressed in comment letters to SSA and in our
interviews revolved largely around the possibility that the replacement of the
Appeals Council with the Decision Review Board would result in rising appeals
to the federal courts. Specifically, more than half of the 252 comment letters
we reviewed indicated that the Appeals Council provides an important screening
function for the federal courts, and that its replacement with the Decision
Review Board could result in rising caseloads at the federal court level. Stakeholder
groups with whom we spoke reiterated this concern. With the imminent rollout in
the Boston region, several stakeholders suggested that SSA closely monitor the
effectiveness of the board and the impact of this change on the federal courts.
Data from SSA suggest that the Appeals Council is both
screening out a number of cases that might otherwise have been pursued in the
federal courts and identifying many claims that require additional agency
analysis. Between 2001 and 2005, the number of disability cases appealed to SSA’s
Appeals Council rose 13 percent. At the same time, the number of disability
cases filed with the federal courts (both DI and SSI) declined 9 percent.[6] Figure
1 illustrates the volume of receipts at both the federal court and the Appeals
Council levels during this period.
![](media/graphics/Robertson_files/image002.gif) Figure 1: Federal Court and Appeals Council Receipts between 2001 and 2005
Note: Data on federal court cases are for the 12-month
periods ending March 31 of the named year. Data on Appeals Council cases are
collected on a fiscal year basis.
Further, the Appeals Council
consistently remanded about 25 percent of the claims it reviewed between 2001
and 2005 for further adjudication by the administrative law judge—see figure
2—providing more evidence that the Appeals Council is identifying a significant
number of claims that require additional agency review and modification.
![](media/graphics/Robertson_files/image003.gif) Figure 2: Disposition of Appeals Council Cases, by Fiscal Year, 2001-2005
Note: The Appeals Council will deny review if cases do not
meet the following criteria—there does not appear to be an abuse of discretion
by the ALJ; there is no error of law; the actions, findings, or conclusions of
the ALJ are supported by substantial evidence; or the case does not present a
broad policy or procedural issue that may affect public interest. If the
Appeals Council denies review, the ALJ decision stands as the final agency
decision.
SSA believes that the implementation of DSI as an entire process will help it
make the correct disability determination at the earliest adjudication stage
possible and thereby reduce the need for appeal. According to SSA, several
elements of the DSI process will contribute to improved decision making. These
include the federal reviewing official position, which presents an enhanced
opportunity for the agency to thoroughly review case records—with the
assistance of medical and vocational experts—-early in the process, as well as
new online policy guidance and new tools to aid decision writing, which will be
used at each adjudication level to facilitate consistency and help the agency
identify and correct errors more quickly. Last, SSA believes that the number of
requests for voluntary remands that SSA makes to the federal courts is an
indicator that the Appeals Council is not fully addressing errors in the case
or otherwise reviewing the case effectively so as to prevent the federal courts
from reviewing appeals that should have been handled administratively. [7] SSA believes the Decision Review Board will
more effectively screen cases from federal court review by focusing on
error-prone claims identified through a predictive model.
SSA acknowledges that the agency cannot predict the likely
impact on the federal courts’ workload and cannot prevent denied claimants from
filing suit with the federal courts.[8] To
reduce the likelihood of too many appeals reaching the federal court level, SSA
stated in its final rule that it is pursuing a gradual rollout by implementing
the DSI process in one small region—the Boston region—and plans to have the
board initially review all of the ALJ decisions in that region. According to
SSA officials, the board’s review of all ALJ decisions will allow them to test
the efficacy of the new predictive model, to help ensure that the model is
identifying the most-error prone cases that might otherwise find their way to
federal court. Further, SSA officials told us that they are working with the
federal court system to develop a way to gauge changes in the court’s caseload.
Finally, SSA’s internal counsel told us that the agency has begun a systematic
data collection process to better understand the circumstances surrounding
remands from the federal court. To date, SSA attorneys have analyzed the
reasons for federal court remands in more than 1,600 cases, but they are still
working on a quality control mechanism to ensure that their information has
been entered properly and are therefore unwilling to report on the results of
their analysis at this time. [9]
Public and Stakeholders
Anticipate Increased Hardship for Claimants, but SSA Believes the New Federal
Reviewing Official Position Will Improve Decision Making Earlier
In their comments on the proposed rule and in subsequent
conversations with us, stakeholders expressed concern that eliminating the Appeals
Council would cause claimants hardship both by eliminating the opportunity to
appeal an ALJ decision to the Appeals Council and by increasing the cost and
difficulty associated with pursuing cases in federal court.
In particular, 48 percent of the 252 comment letters we
reviewed expressed concern that the replacement of the Appeals Council with the
Decision Review Board would represent a loss in claimant appeal rights within
SSA. These letters, as well as subsequent discussions with stakeholders,
emphasized the concern that claimants will not have a say in which cases are
reviewed by the board. Further, stakeholders were concerned that in the Boston region, claimants whose cases were allowed at the ALJ level could be overturned by
the board, presenting additional hardship for claimants as they await a
decision.
In addition, claimant representatives and disability
advocacy organizations are concerned that appealing at the federal court rather
than Appeals Council level would be costlier and more intimidating for claimants.
For example, there is a filing fee associated with the federal courts, and stakeholders
commenting on SSA’s final rule said that the filing procedure is more
complicated than that required for an appeal before the Appeals Council.[10] In
addition, claimants seeking representation must find attorneys who, among other
requirements, have membership in the district court bar in which the case is to
be filed. As a result of these hardships, claimant representatives and
disability advocacy organizations, in particular, were concerned that claimants
would drop meritorious claims rather than pursue a seemingly complicated and
intimidating federal court appeal.
About 40 percent of the comment letters asserted that the
amount of time the Appeals Council spent adjudicating cases—also referred to as
its processing time—has improved recently, and letter writers did not believe
that terminating the Appeals Council would improve the adjudicative process. Although
SSA has contended that the Appeals Council has historically taken too much time
without providing claimants relief, stakeholders’ claims that the Appeals
Council processing time has decreased significantly in recent years was
confirmed by SSA data—see figure 3. In light of these concerns, many
stakeholder groups we spoke with suggested that SSA should roll out the
Decision Review Board carefully and closely evaluate outcomes from claimants’
perspectives.
![](media/graphics/Robertson_files/image004.gif) Figure 3: Appeals Council Processing Time and Volume of Dispositions, by Fiscal
Year, 2001-2005
Note: SSA does not track how many of the cases remanded by
the Appeals Council result in denials that are appealed again to the council.
In their final rule and in conversations with us, SSA officials stated that the
new process still affords claimants comparable appeal rights along with the
promise of a faster agency decision. Specifically, SSA stated that DSI includes
two federal levels of thorough case development and administrative review—one
by the new federal reviewing official and another by an ALJ at the hearings
level. SSA contends that the new federal reviewing official position is a
marked departure from the reconsideration step, in that the position will be
managed centrally and staffed by attorneys specifically charged with enhancing
the development of a case and working with a new cadre of medical and
vocational experts to make decisions. SSA believes that this new position, along
with other changes in the new process, will result in many more cases being
correctly adjudicated earlier in the process, resulting in fewer decisions
appealed and reviewed by ALJs at the hearings level.
SSA also argues—recent improvements in processing time
notwithstanding—that the elimination of the Appeals Council step will reduce
the length of time it takes the agency to reach a final decision on behalf of
the claimant. Further, SSA maintains that the replacement of the Appeals
Council with the board will not be prejudicial to or complicated for the
claimant. SSA indicated that claimants will have an opportunity to submit
written statements to the Decision Review Board, thus providing another chance
to assert their circumstances. SSA maintains that aside from the written
statement, further action is not required on the part of the claimant until the
board issues its decision.
SSA has told us that it plans to monitor stakeholder
concerns in several ways. For example, SSA plans to track the length of time it
takes to reach final decisions as well as the allowance rate. SSA also plans to
review written statements submitted by claimants to help assess the validity of
the board’s predictive model.[11]
SSA Has Taken Constructive
Steps to Implement the New DSI Process, but Its Schedule Is Ambitious and
Many Details Are Not Yet Finalized
SSA has prepared in significant ways for DSI, but the
agency’s timetable is ambitious and substantive work remains. SSA has moved
forward in key areas that should underpin the new system—human capital
development, technical infrastructure, and quality assurance. However, some
essential measures remain under development, particularly for quality
assurance. Nevertheless, on balance, the agency has begun to employ a number of
change management strategies we recommended earlier for successful
transitioning.
SSA Has Moved to Hire and
Train Staff, but It Faces Short Timetables
While stakeholders have expressed concern that SSA will
not be able to hire and sufficiently train staff in time for the new process,
we found that the agency has taken a number of steps in this area. With respect
to hiring for new positions, the agency has already developed position
descriptions and posted hiring announcements for nurse case managers, who will
work in the new Medical and Vocational Expert Unit, as well as for federal
reviewing officials. To date, SSA officials have begun assessing more than 100
eligible applicants for the reviewing official slots, and expect to hire 70 by
late June and another 43 in early 2007. SSA officials also said they posted
announcements to hire nurse case managers, and that they expect to hire as many
as 90 before the end of the rollout’s first year in the Boston region.
SSA officials also said that the agency has posted
announcements to hire support staff for both the reviewing officials and nurse
case managers, but the exact number SSA is seeking to hire has not been
decided. Several stakeholders we spoke with were particularly concerned that
SSA will need to hire or otherwise provide adequate support staff for reviewing
officials to ensure their effectiveness. Specifically, several of the ALJs we interviewed
told us that at the hearings level, judges and their staff currently spend
significant time developing case files. They noted that if the reviewing
official position is designed to focus on case development, then attorneys in
this role will need support staff to help them with this time-consuming work.
With respect to training, the agency has been creating a
variety of training materials for new and current staff, with plans to deliver
training at different times, in different ways. SSA officials reported working
on development of a uniform training package for all staff with some flexible
components for more specialized needs. Specifically, about 80 percent of the
package is common content for all employees, and 20 percent will be adaptable
to train disability examiners, medical experts, ALJs, and others involved in
the adjudication process. SSA officials said they developed the package with
the federal reviewing officials in mind, but also with an eye toward a
centralized training content that could apply to current and new staff down the
line. SSA plans to provide the full training package, which constitutes about 8
weeks of course work and 13 modules, to reviewing officials in late June, once
all attorneys for that position are hired. Among the sessions included are the
basics of the disability determination process, eDib and its use, medical
listings and their application, and decision writing.
Given that the rule was finalized in March and rollout is
set for August, agency timetables for hiring, training, and deploying more than
100 new staff—as well as for training existing examiners—in the six states in
the Boston region are extremely short. SSA officials have acknowledged the
tight time frame, but hope to deliver training by using more than one medium—in
person, online, or by video. SSA still expects to accomplish all hiring and
training for the Boston region staff in time for an August 1 launch of the new
process.
SSA Has Readied eDib for the
Boston Region, but Time for Resolving Last-Minute Glitches before Rollout
Will Be Limited
SSA has also taken steps, as we had previously
recommended, to ensure that key technical supports, particularly an electronic
disability case recording and tracking system known as eDib, are in place in
time for Boston staff to adjudicate claims under DSI electronically. The agency
has made a variety of efforts to familiarize employees with the system and
facilitate their ability to use it as early as possible. First, SSA positioned
the Boston region for a fast transition to eDib by reducing the region’s paper
case backlog. According to a Boston region ALJ, pending case records are being
converted now to familiarize judges and decision writers with the eDib system
so they will be comfortable with it when new cases reach that level after
August 1. Then SSA worked with Boston region staff to certify that the region’s
DDS offices were ready for full eDib implementation.
According to claimant representatives, SSA has also worked
to facilitate their transition to eDib, and according to SSA officials, the
agency has developed a system called Electronic Records Express to facilitate
medical providers’ submission of records to SSA. A stakeholder group of
claimant representatives told us that SSA has offered them training and that
they have met regularly with agency staff to smooth out eDib issues, such as
difficulties associated with the use of electronic folders—electronic storage
devices that replace paper folders as the official record of evidence in a claimant’s
case file. This stakeholders group also reported that its members have
voluntarily coordinated with SSA to test new techniques that might further
facilitate eDib implementation.
SSA has also been developing electronic templates to
streamline decision writing. ALJs have already received some training on
theirs, which is known as the Findings Integrated Template. According to SSA
officials, this template is now used, voluntarily, by ALJs nationwide, after
months of extensive testing and refinement. For DDS-level decisions, SSA is
designing a template—called the Electronic Case Analysis Tool (E-CAT)—which it
expects to be partially operational by July and fully implemented by November. DDS
examiners in the Boston region will receive training on the tool in July and
will also receive training prior to then on the elements of sound decision
making. A similar tool is in development for the reviewing officials.
While SSA officials expressed confidence in having
technical supports sufficiently in place in time for implementation of DSI in
August, unanticipated problems associated with new technology may challenge
their ability to do so. In addition to eDib and E-CAT, SSA is implementing
other new software systems to support the rollout (such as the predictive
models and electronic medical records transmission)—any one of which may
involve unexpected problems. For example, in 2005 we reported that a number of
DDSs were experiencing operational slowdowns and system glitches associated
with the new eDib system.[12] It
remains to be seen whether the Boston region experiences similar problems with
eDib, or problems with other new systems, and whether SSA will be able to
resolve technical issues that may arise before implementation begins in August.
SSA Is Improving Its Quality
Assurance System as Part of DSI Rollout, although Key Elements Have Yet to Be
Revealed
SSA is taking steps to improve its quality assurance
system that have potential for improving the accuracy and consistency of
decisions among and between levels of review, in a manner that is consistent
with our past recommendations. As early as 1999, GAO recommended that in order
to improve the likelihood of making improvements to its disability claims
process, SSA should focus resources on initiatives such as process unification
and quality assurance, and ensure that quality assurance processes are in place
that both monitor and promote the quality of disability decisions.[13] Consistent
with these recommendations, many of SSA’s current efforts involve adding steps
and tools to the decision-making process that promote quality and consistency
of decisions and provide for additional monitoring and feedback. While these
developments are promising, many important details of SSA’s quality assurance
system have yet to be finalized or revealed to us.
SSA has recently elevated responsibility for its quality
assurance system to a new deputy-level position and office—the Office of
Quality Performance. This office is responsible for quality assurance across
all levels of adjudication. Listed below are new aspects of the quality
assurance system that this office oversees and that hold promise for promoting
quality and consistency of decisions.
- SSA
will continue to provide accuracy rates for DDS decisions, but these accuracy
rates will be generated by a centralized quality assurance review, replacing
the agency’s older system of regionally based quality review boards and thereby
eliminating the potential differences among regional reviews that were a cause
for inconsistent decisions among DDSs.
- As
part of the DSI rollout, SSA plans to incorporate new electronic tools for
decision writing to be used by disability examiners, federal reviewing
officials, and ALJs. The tools are intended to promote quality in two ways. First,
the tools will require decision makers to document the rationale behind
decisions in a consistent manner while specifically addressing areas that have
contributed to errors in the past, such as failing to list a medical expert’s
credentials or inaccurately characterizing medical evidence. Second, the tools
will help provide a feedback loop, by which adjudicators and decision writers
can learn why and under what circumstances their decisions were remanded or
reversed. SSA officials told us that once the tools are in full use, the Office
of Quality Performance will collect and analyze their content to identify
errors or areas lacking clarity. They also plan to provide monthly reports to
regional managers in order to help them better guide staff on how to improve
the soundness of their decisions and the quality of their writing.[14]
- The
establishment of the Decision Review Board, with responsibility for reviewing
ALJ decisions, is intended to promote quality and consistency of decisions in two
ways. First, once DSI is rolled out nationwide, the board will be tasked to
review error-prone ALJ decisions with the intent of further ensuring the
correctness of these decisions before they are finalized. Second, during the
initial rollout phase, SSA plans to have the board review all ALJ decisions to verify
that the predictive model used to select error-prone cases is doing so as intended.
Importantly, both the tools and the board’s assessment are consistent with our
prior recommendations that SSA engage in more sophisticated analysis to
identify inconsistencies across its levels of adjudication and improve decision
making once the causes of inconsistency among them have been identified.[15]
In addition to these actions, SSA told us it plans to measure outcomes related
to how DSI is affecting claimants, such as allowance rates and processing times
at each adjudication stage, and the proportion of cases remanded from the federal
courts and the rationales for these remands. Further, officials told us they
will work with the federal courts to track changes in their workload. SSA
officials also told us they are working to monitor changes in costs associated
with the new DSI process, in terms of both the administrative costs of the
process, as well as its overall effect on benefit payments. Officials also said
that SSA will track the length of time it takes the agency to reach a final
decision from the claimant’s perspective, which we have recommended in the
past.[16] Although
SSA officials told us that ALJ accuracy rates will be generated from the
board’s review of all ALJ decisions, they said they were not yet certain how they
will measure these rates once DSI is rolled out nationwide and the board is no
longer reviewing all ALJ decisions.
While these developments are promising, aspects of these
changes and of SSA’s plans to monitor the DSI implementation have either not
been finalized or not been revealed to us. For example, SSA has not yet
revealed the types of reports it will be able to provide decision makers based
on the decision-writing tools. In addition, while SSA plans to measure the
effectiveness of the new process, its timeline for doing so and the performance
measures it plans to use have not been finalized. According to SSA officials,
potential measures include how well the predictive models have targeted cases
for quick decisions at the initial DDS level or error-prone cases for the
board, and whether feedback loops are providing information that actually
improves the way adjudicators and decision writers perform their work.
SSA Has Employed Other
Change Management Practices to Implement DSI
SSA’s efforts and plans show commitment to implementing
DSI gradually, using tested concepts, involving top-level management, and
communicating frequently with key stakeholders—practices that adhere closely to
our prior recommendations on effective change management practices.
With regard to gradual implementation, we had previously
suggested that SSA test promising concepts in a few sites to allow for careful
integration of the new processes in a cost-effective manner before changes are
implemented on a larger scale.[17] SSA’s
decision to implement DSI in one small region is consistent with this
recommendation. SSA officials told us they selected Boston because it
represents the smallest share of cases reviewed at the hearings level and
because it is geographically close to SSA’s headquarters to facilitate close
monitoring. While SSA officials acknowledged that unanticipated problems and
issues are likely to arise with implementation, they assert that they will be
able to identify major issues in the first 60 to 90 days. SSA officials believe
this will give them plenty of time to make changes before rollout begins in a
second region. SSA has also indicated that it plans to roll DSI out next in
another relatively small region.
Also consistent with our past recommendations, SSA
officials noted that some new elements of DSI have been tested prior to
integration. For example, the ALJ tool for decision writing has been tested
extensively during development, and they anticipate having fewer challenges
when similar tools are used more widely. In addition, SSA has said that it has
rigorously tested its model related to the Quick Disability Determination
System and that it will continue to check the selection of cases and monitor
the length of time it takes for quick decisions to be rendered.
SSA’s efforts and plans are also consistent with effective
change management practices in that they ensure the commitment and involvement
of top management.[18] Specifically,
SSA’s Commissioner first proposed DSI-related changes in September 2003, and
the agency began restructuring itself soon after the rule was finalized. In
addition, SSA created a deputy-level post for its new Office of Quality
Performance and appointed a new Deputy Commissioner in its newly created Office
of Disability Adjudication and Review, which oversees the hearing and appeals
processes.
We have also encouraged top managers to work actively to
promote and facilitate change, and SSA appears to be adhering to these principles
as well.[19] For
example, SSA officials told us that the Deputy Commissioners from SSA’s offices
of Personnel and Human Capital have collaborated with their counterparts in
policy units to develop position descriptions and competencies for nurse case
managers and federal reviewing officials. According to SSA officials, these
leaders are also collaborating to develop interview questions for eligible
candidates. Further, SSA officials told us their new human capital plan will be
released sometime in July and that it will emphasize the goals of DSI, as well
as the personnel changes that will accompany it.
Finally, SSA’s communication efforts with stakeholders
align with change management principles in several respects. For example, SSA
has employed a proactive, collaborative approach to engaging the stakeholder
community both during DSI’s design and in its planning for implementation in
order to explain why change is necessary, workable, and beneficial. Even before
the notice of proposed rule making on DSI was published, SSA began to meet with
stakeholder groups to develop the proposal that would eventually shape the new
structure. Then, once the proposed rule was issued, SSA officials told us they
formed a team to read and analyze the hundreds of comment letters that
stakeholders submitted. In addition, they conducted a number of meetings with
external stakeholders to help the agency identify common areas of concern and
develop an approach to resolving the issues stakeholders raised before rollout
began. According to SSA officials responsible for these meetings, the
Commissioner attended more than 100 meetings to hear stakeholder concerns
directly. Further, SSA recently scheduled a meeting for early July with
claimant representatives to discuss that group’s particular concerns about how
the new process will affect their work and their disability clients. SSA
officials told us that senior-level staff will lead the meeting and that about
100 claimant representatives from the Boston region will attend.
In addition, SSA officials have also worked to ensure that
there are open lines of communication with its internal stakeholders, thereby
ensuring that disability examiners and staff in the Boston region are
knowledgeable about DSI-related changes. For example, SSA solicited comments
and questions from the Boston region’s staff about the specifics of the rollout
and held a day-long meeting in the region, led by Deputy Commissioners, to
respond to these concerns.
Concluding Observations
For some time, SSA has been striving to address
long-standing problems in its disability claims process. From our perspective,
it appears that SSA is implementing the new claims process by drawing upon many
lessons learned from past redesign efforts and acting on, or at least aligning its
actions with, our past recommendations. For example, significant aspects of the
DSI rollout are consistent with our recommendations to focus resources on what
is critical to improving the disability claims process, such as quality
assurance and computer support. SSA’s incremental approach to implementing
DSI—taking a year to monitor the process and testing new decision-writing tools,
for example—is also consistent with our recommendation to explore options
before committing significant resources to their adoption. Thus, the agency is
positioning itself to make necessary modifications before implementing the new
process in subsequent locations. Finally, and fundamental to all of this, SSA’s
top leadership has shown a commitment to informing affected stakeholders and
listening to their advice and concerns with respect to the development and
implementation of this process.
While SSA’s steps and plans look promising, we want to
stress the importance of diligence and follow-through in two key areas. The
first is quality assurance, which entails both effective monitoring and
evaluation. A solid monitoring plan is key to helping SSA quickly identify and
correct problems that surface in the Boston rollout, because any failure to
correct problems could put the entire process at risk. An evaluation plan is
critical for ensuring that processes are working as intended and that SSA is
achieving its overarching goals of making accurate, consistent decisions as
early in the process as possible. The second key area is communication. It is
important for SSA’s top leadership to support open lines of communication
throughout implementation if the agency is to facilitate a successful
transition. Failure to, for example, provide useful feedback to staff—many of
whom will be new to the agency or at least to the new tools—could significantly
jeopardize opportunities for improvement. Just as important, SSA’s top
management needs to ensure that the concerns and questions of stakeholders
affected by the new process are heard, and that concerned parties are kept
apprised of how SSA intends to respond.
The eventual elimination of the Appeals Council and its
replacement with the Decision Review Board with a very different purpose has
been a great cause of concern for a number of stakeholders. SSA appropriately
has plans to assess its impact by tracking decisions resulting from each stage
of the new process, as well as the effect of the process on the federal courts’
caseloads and claimants at large. To its credit, SSA plans to reduce any immediate
impact on the courts by requiring that the board initially review all ALJ
decisions in the Boston region. However, given that the agency plans to rely
heavily on new positions, such as the federal reviewing official, and on new
technology, SSA will need to ensure that staff are well trained, and that each
adjudicator has the support staff needed to work effectively. Focusing on one
small region will, it is hoped, allow the agency to ensure that training,
technology, and other resources are well developed to achieve expected goals
before DSI is expanded to other parts of the country.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I would
be happy to answer any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
may have.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
To learn more about the public’s and stakeholders’ views
with regard to the Appeals Council and the Decision Review Board, we reviewed
and analyzed a large sample of comment letters they submitted to the Social
Security Administration (SSA) in response to its July 2005 notice of proposed
rule making on the Disability Service Improvement process (DSI) that were
related to these topics. We also interviewed a number of key stakeholder groups
to solicit their opinions once the rule had been finalized.
Reviewing and Analyzing
Comment Letters
To review and analyze the comment letters, we first
downloaded all 1,143 comments that SSA had received and posted to its public Web site. In
order to focus our review on only those letters that related to the Appeals
Council and the Decision Review Board, we then applied a word search to
restrict our analysis to the responses that used the terms “Decision Review
Board,” “DRB,” and “Council.”[20] Applying
these search terms reduced the number of comment letters for review to 683. We
discarded 43 of these 683 letters over the course of our review because they
were duplicates of letters by the same authors or did not contain relevant
comments. As a result, our final analysis was based on the remaining 640
letters.
To classify the nature of the comments contained in these
640 letters, we coded the opinions as related to one of more of the following
concerns:
- The
Appeals Council is improving, and its termination will not improve the
disability determinations process.
- There
is a risk that the Decision Review Board may not select the most appropriate
cases for review.
- There
is a risk that Decision Review Board could unfairly evaluate or influence
administrative law judge decisions.
- In
the absence of an Appeals Council, the claimant no longer has the right to
initiate subsequent case review.
- There
is no opportunity for the claimant or his or her representative to argue before
the Decision Review Board.
- A
claimant’s benefit might be protracted or delayed during Decision Review Board
assessment.
- Petitions
to the federal court are likely to increase.
- Appeals
to the federal court are costly or intimidating, and claimants may not have the
wherewithal to pursue the claim at this level.
Of the 640 letters in our review, we initially identified 388 as form letters,
or letters containing identical comments, even though they had different
authors. To simplify our review, we coded these form letters separately from
the other letters. For the 252 letters that we did not initially identify as
form letters, one analyst reviewed and coded each letter, while a second
analyst verified that he or she had coded the statements appropriately. If the
first and second analysts did not come to an agreement, a third analyst
reviewed the comment and made the final decision for how the content should be
classified. Table 2 below indicates the percentage of the 252 letters citing
one or more of the above concerns.
Table 2: Share of Comment Letters Including
Each of the Concern Categories Included in This Study
Concern category |
Percentage of comment letters expressing concern
(n = 252) |
Petitions to the federal court are likely to
increase. |
53 |
In the absence of an Appeals Council, the claimant no
longer has the right to initiate subsequent case review. |
48 |
The Appeals Council is improving, and its termination
will not improve the disability determinations process. |
38 |
Appeals to the federal court are costly or
intimidating, and claimants may not have the wherewithal to pursue the claim
at this level. |
37 |
There is no opportunity for the claimant or his or
her representative to argue before the Decision Review Board. |
28 |
There is a risk that the Decision Review Board may
not select the most appropriate cases for review. |
25 |
There is a risk that Decision Review Board could
unfairly evaluate or influence administrative law judge decisions. |
22 |
A claimant’s benefit might be protracted or delayed
during Decision Review Board assessment. |
18 |
Source: GAO analysis
For the 388 form letters, we coded one letter according to the process
described above. Because the text of the form letters was identical for each,
we then applied the same codes to each of the other form letters. All 388 form
letters expressed each of the concerns above.
Identifying and Interviewing
Stakeholders
To identify key stakeholders, we first referenced the list
of organizations that SSA included in its notice of proposed rule making as
having met with the agency during its development of the final rule. We then
narrowed this list by obtaining suggestions from SSA officials about
organizations that are the most active and cover a broad spectrum of disability
issues. In total, we spoke with representatives from 10 groups:
- Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts’ Judicial Conference Committee on Federal-State
Jurisdiction,
- Association
of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ),
- Consortium
for Citizens with Disabilities’ Social Security Task Force (CCD),
- National
Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities (NACDD),
- National
Association of Disability Examiners (NADE),
- National
Association of Disability Representatives (NADR),
- National
Council of Disability Determination Directors (NCDDD),
- National
Council of Social Security Management Associations (NCSSMA),
- National
Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSCCR), and
- Social
Security Advisory Board.
[1]According
to SSA, for the first year of implementation in the Boston region, the board
will review all ALJ decisions.
[2]According
to these regulations, SSA will publish a notice in the federal register when it
decides to roll out DSI in another region, but this notice will not be subject
to the formal rule-making process.
[3]If
a claimant moves to another region from the Boston region, and initially filed
the claim in the Boston region on or after August 1, 2006, the conditions of the DSI process will apply to that claimant no matter where he or she moves.
If a claimant initially filed elsewhere and then moves to the Boston region,
the DSI process will not apply to him or her.
[4]These
procedures can be found in the Code of Federal Regulations, 20 CFR
404.900-404.999d and 416.1400-416.1499.
[5]According
to SSA, the predictive model used to identify cases that are complex or error-prone
will be tested against the board’s review of all cases during the rollout in Boston. The model will be tested continually until it has been proven reliable.
[6]According
to data from the U.S. District Courts, claims from 15,416 disability insurance
cases (both DI and SSI), or 6 percent of the court’s total workload, were filed
during the 12-month period ending March 31, 2005—down from 16,921 in 2001.
[7]According to SSA officials, request for voluntary
remands occur when a claimant files an appeal with the federal court and SSA’s
Office of General Counsel determines that the case is not defensible.
[8]In
the 1990s, SSA conducted a pilot—the Full Process Model—which included, among
other changes, eliminating the Appeals Council. According to SSA officials,
although they collected some data on the number of direct appeals from the ALJ
level to the federal courts, the agency discontinued its pilot before
collecting sufficient data for a complete assessment of the model’s impact.
[9]SSA
officials also indicated that they intend to develop a predictive model, to
build on current efforts, that identifies error-prone cases among those denied
by ALJs that are subsequently remanded by the federal courts back to SSA for
further adjudication.
[10]To
appeal to the Appeals Council, applicants need only complete a one-page form
and return it to SSA. For the federal courts, there is a $250 filing fee. Although
this fee can be waived (based on need), claimant representatives and disability
advocates assert that the fee may be cost-prohibitive for some claimants, and
representing oneself at the federal court level is challenging.
[11]Specifically,
SSA plans to compare the contents of these statements to the results of the
predictive model. If SSA determines that using claimant statements will improve
the model, SSA would consider revising the model to incorporate information
from these documents.
[12]GAO,
Electronic Disability Claims Processing: SSA Is
Proceeding with Its Accelerated Systems Initiative but Needs to Address
Operational Issues, GAO-05-97 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 23, 2005).
[13]GAO,
SSA Disability Redesign: Actions Needed to Enhance
Future Progress, GAO/HEHS-99-25 (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 12, 1999).
[14]The
purpose of this tool is consistent with GAO’s prior recommendations that SSA
develop a more focused and effective strategy for ensuring uniform application
of SSA’s guidance and to improve consistency of decisions. GAO, Social Security Administration: More Effort Needed to
Assess Consistency of Disability Decisions, GAO-04-656 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2004).
[15]GAO-04-656.
[16]GAO,
Observations on the Social Security Administration’s Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, GAO/HEHS-00-126R (Washington,
D.C.: June 30, 2000).
[17]GAO,
SSA Disability Redesign: Actions Needed to Enhance
Future Progress, GAO/HEHS-99-25 (Washington,
D.C.: March 12, 1999) and GAO, Correspondence to Jo Anne Barnhart, Commissioner
of the Social Security Administration. (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2003).
[18]GAO,
Business Process Reengineering Assessment Guide,
GAO/AIMD-10.1.15 (Washington, D.C.: May 1997).
[19]GAO/AIMD-10.1.15
and GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist with
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.:
July 2, 2004).
[20]It
is possible that statements could have been made about the Appeals Council and
Decision Review Board that did not use these terms, and that we could have
missed. If so, the number of responses related to these two entities could be
greater than we are reporting.
| |