By Scott B. Elkind Elkind & Shea The Disability Benefits Law Firm Silver Spring, Maryland More than 80% of all nonelderly adults are insured against disability by the Social Security Administration Insurance (DI) program. The number of persons receiving these benefits has increased substantially (from 2.4% of the population receiving benefits in 1985 to 4.1% in 2005) in the past two decades. In 2005 alone, 832,000 new persons were awarded disability benefits which, assuming continued disability of claimants and current economic trends, will cost taxpayers over the course of the average claim duration a total of $125 billion in present day dollars. Once Medicare payments begin, there is an additional present day value claim cost per disability recipient of $245,000.00. The annual spending for disability benefits is 8.1% of the federal budget in 2005. Given the expected increases in the aging population, the increased number of disability claims poses a significant financial risk to the solvency of the Social Security system. The increase in the disability rolls has been attributed to a combination of several factors. The first factor is the growth in recipients suffering from back pain and mental illness. The comparatively low mortality rate and high claim duration period resulting from these conditions has increased the size of the disabled population. The second concern is the increase of payable disability benefits to increasing recipient earnings. A third factor is the rapid increase in the female labor force. Surprising, the aging of the baby boom generation has only contributed modestly to the increase in disability claim filings due to improvements in population health. Lastly, and perhaps, most importantly, the number of persons exiting the disability has decreased substantially. In 1983, 16.4% of people receiving disability benefits exited the system because of death, entering retirement, or no longer being disabled. Persons exiting the system decreased to 7.2% by 2005. A similar funding “crisis” occurred in the 1970s leading to the tightening of medical eligibility criteria and increasing continuing disability reviews. By 1980, this process yielded both a significant decline in applications, award and enrollment, but generated a public backlash. This led to 1984 legislation enlarging the disability determination focus from objectively verifiable diagnostic criteria to consideration of an individual’s ability to function in a work setting. Prior to 1984, 93% of initial awards were based on medical factors only. This fell to 58% by 2003. The 1984 legislation also placed controlling evidentiary weight on the treating physician findings rather than findings made by SSA’s consultative physician. There are several schools of thought as to what can be done to reform the system under the guise of whether claimants are “misusing” these benefits. First, the assumption that people are “cheating” the system has been belied by a 1989 study which revealed that 30% or less of persons initially denied benefits would return to work. Given changes in the labor market, newly disabled persons would be even less capable of finding employment. There is also a noted incongruity that during an economic recovery, many people who have been out of work for extended periods find it difficult to return to work. Another consideration for controlling claims are changes in the screening process for disability benefits. Despite repeated efforts at improving the efficiency, accuracy, and consistency of this process, the disability determination process has evolved from a bureaucratic function to an adversarial process which relies heavily on appeals and adjudication. This change has resulted in records numbers of backlogged cases as they await adjudication. This is made worse by the projected increase in claim applications (with a 4% in claims disability claims from 2008 to 2009 alone). Another avenue for slowing growth of the disabled population is to reduce inflows to the Disability Insurance Program. The first method of stemming such flow is to adopt more rigorous eligibility criteria which again emphasizes medical rather than vocational factors as done previously. This would have the unintended consequence of resulting in a increase denial rate for deserving claimants suffering from conditions which are difficult to verify (such as those causing pain or mental disorders). A suggested counterbalance would be by the commissioning of “independent” medical and vocational evaluations of claimants during the initial disability determination. Alternatively, disability claims allowances could be decreased at the hearing level via instituting attorney representation on behalf of the Social Security Administration. Such an effort “would ameliorate this almost comically lopsided setting, in which the Social Security Administration currently loses nearly three-quarters of all appeals.” Another approach being considered is to increase the availability of Medicare as a stopgap form of health insurance to assist in treatment of applicants and allow for a faster return to work. Increasing the number of continuing disability reviews is also possible. The cost of performing such reviews is significantly lower than the savings associated with the reduction of benefits achieved. Currently, the DI program is unable to perform the targeted number of these reviews due to limited resources. There is another, more controversial proposed method for limiting the expense of disability claims. The current system is geared to an all-or-nothing cash award which could be reformed to a graduated disability scale. Such a change would allow workers to remain in their jobs in a more limited capacity while receiving partial disability benefit payments. Although this would initially result in a rise in disability applicants, the payments would be lowered. With the additional of tougher screening requirements, payments could be reduced substantially. An even more potentially contentious alternative would be to consider nonwage income and assets of disabled persons with an eye to reducing benefits payable to persons with greater ability to finance their own existence. Of course, increasing the payroll tax with dedication of the proceeds to the Social Security Administration would alleviate the funding problem, but the political consequences of raising taxes remain challenging. In the end, despite the known challenges to the Disability Insurance program, there has been no concerted effort to address the problem. The “kick the can down the road” mentality remains pervasive due to potential political fallback as no one seems wishes to touch the proverbial “third rail” of politics and tackle this issue. We would like to thank Scott Elkind, one of the nation’s top long term disability attorneys for this guest post. http://www.disabilitybenefitslawfirm.com/
Focused On Serving Your Needs

"UPDATE: To protect your safety during the coronavirus (COVID-19) crisis, we offer video conferencing, as well as telephone conferences, in place of face-to-face meetings. Please contact our office today to set up a remote consultation."
Social Security Administration’s “Fiscal Crisis” With The Disability Program
On behalf of O’Malley Tunstall PLLC | May 25, 2011 | Social Security Law
Categories
- Actos (3)
- Auto Accident Law (40)
- Blog (37)
- Business Or Tourist Affected By Power Outage (1)
- Car Accidents (105)
- Car Crash? What To Do Next (1)
- Choosing Your North Carolina Injury Or Disability Attorney (1)
- Civil Trial (64)
- Damages (1)
- David Bridgman Joins O'Malley Tunstall (1)
- DraftKings Or FanDuel Fantasy Sports (1)
- Drug Maker Failed To Warn Cancer Patients Of Permanent Hair Loss (1)
- E-cigarette Exploding Causing Burns (1)
- Federal Social Security Disability Cases (1)
- Firm News (6)
- Haeco Leaked Confidential Employee Information (1)
- Halloween Safety For Your Children (1)
- Halloween Safety For Your Children (1)
- Infection Following Hip Or Knee Replacement Surgery (1)
- Injured By A Drunk Driver (3)
- Insurance Company (1)
- Joe Tunstall And Susan O’Malley Selected 2019 NC Super Lawyers (1)
- Legally Speaking (119)
- Long-term Disability (5)
- Low Testosterone (1)
- Motor Vehicle Accidents (16)
- Move Over! Bill Requires Slow Drivers To Move Over From Left Lane (1)
- Nash County Beta Club Going To National Convention (1)
- NC Lawyers Reviewing Byetta, Januvia, Victoza (1)
- NC Lawyers Reviewing Byetta, Januvia, Victoza (1)
- NC Medical Malpractice Verdict Tunstall (1)
- NONE (1)
- North Carolina Farmers With Syngenta Corn Claims (1)
- North Carolina Injury Attorney (1)
- O'Malley Tunstall has two named to Super Lawyers 2021 NC (1)
- O'Malley Tunstall Referrals: The Best Advertising (1)
- Pedestrian Accident (1)
- Personal Injuries (4)
- Personal Injury (3)
- Personal Injury Law (65)
- Premises Liability (20)
- Products Liability (42)
- Protect Yourself, Keep Vehicle Under Control During MVA (1)
- Second Wreck – Use The Same Attorney? (1)
- Serious Heart Or Kidney Problems On Invokana Or Canagliflozin (1)
- Serious Injury? Need NC Social Security, Workers' Compensation And Auto Accident Lawyer? (1)
- Settlement Child Hurt Bounce House Inflatable (1)
- Sexual Enhancement (1)
- Slip Trip Fall (1)
- Social Security (11)
- Social Security (8)
- Social Security Disability (24)
- Social Security Disability Backlog 2017 (1)
- Social Security Disability Benefits (1)
- Social Security Disability If You Cannot Use Both Hands (1)
- Social Security Disability Limited Time To Apply For Benefits (1)
- Social Security Law (55)
- Social Security Wait Times (2)
- SSDI (1)
- Susan O'Malley's Social Security Decision Ten Year Anniversary (1)
- Susan O'Malley's Social Security Decision Ten Year Anniversary (1)
- Trips Slips And Falls At Stores (1)
- Truck Accidents (3)
- Truck Accidents (63)
- Tunstall Named Super Lawyer 2015 Personal Injury (1)
- Tunstall Named Super Lawyer 2017 Personal Injury (1)
- Tunstall Selected To 2015 List Nation's Top One Percent (1)
- Tunstall Selected To The 2017 List As Nation's Top One Percent (1)
- Wags 4 Tags (1)
- Wear Helmet While Riding Horses (1)
- Winter Driving Safety (1)
- Workers' Compensation (63)
- Workers' Compensation Law (17)
- Xarelto (1)
Archives
- March 2021 (2)
- February 2021 (2)
- January 2021 (2)
- November 2020 (1)
- October 2020 (2)
- September 2020 (5)
- August 2020 (6)
- July 2020 (6)
- June 2020 (7)
- May 2020 (6)
- April 2020 (5)
- March 2020 (8)
- February 2020 (6)
- January 2020 (6)
- December 2019 (7)
- November 2019 (5)
- October 2019 (5)
- September 2019 (7)
- August 2019 (7)
- July 2019 (6)
- June 2019 (5)
- May 2019 (6)
- April 2019 (10)
- March 2019 (3)
- February 2019 (6)
- January 2019 (7)
- December 2018 (5)
- November 2018 (5)
- October 2018 (6)
- September 2018 (3)
- August 2018 (9)
- July 2018 (9)
- June 2018 (9)
- May 2018 (8)
- April 2018 (9)
- March 2018 (9)
- February 2018 (9)
- January 2018 (11)
- December 2017 (9)
- November 2017 (9)
- October 2017 (11)
- September 2017 (11)
- August 2017 (11)
- July 2017 (9)
- June 2017 (8)
- May 2017 (12)
- April 2017 (10)
- March 2017 (11)
- February 2017 (9)
- January 2017 (10)
- December 2016 (10)
- November 2016 (5)
- October 2016 (2)
- September 2016 (2)
- August 2016 (2)
- July 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (2)
- May 2016 (8)
- April 2016 (2)
- March 2016 (2)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (3)
- December 2015 (2)
- November 2015 (4)
- October 2015 (3)
- September 2015 (3)
- August 2015 (2)
- July 2015 (4)
- June 2015 (3)
- May 2015 (2)
- April 2015 (3)
- March 2015 (4)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (8)
- December 2014 (3)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (4)
- September 2014 (4)
- August 2014 (3)
- July 2014 (3)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (3)
- April 2014 (6)
- March 2014 (6)
- February 2014 (4)
- January 2014 (4)
- December 2013 (4)
- November 2013 (5)
- October 2013 (4)
- September 2013 (2)
- August 2013 (4)
- July 2013 (5)
- June 2013 (3)
- May 2013 (5)
- April 2013 (2)
- March 2013 (4)
- February 2013 (3)
- January 2013 (2)
- December 2012 (7)
- November 2012 (3)
- October 2012 (5)
- September 2012 (2)
- August 2012 (1)
- July 2012 (2)
- June 2012 (3)
- April 2012 (5)
- March 2012 (4)
- February 2012 (6)
- January 2012 (8)
- December 2011 (4)
- November 2011 (3)
- October 2011 (2)
- September 2011 (8)
- August 2011 (9)
- July 2011 (2)
- June 2011 (1)
- May 2011 (8)
- April 2011 (4)


