[Senate Hearing 108-515] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 108-515 THE ROAD TO RECOVERY: SOLVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BACKLOG ======================================================================= HEARING before the OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE of the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ FIELD HEARING AT CLEVELAND, OHIO MARCH 29, 2004 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 94-200 WASHINGTON : DC ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio CARL LEVIN, Michigan NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama MARK PRYOR, Arkansas Michael D. Bopp, Staff Director and Chief Counsel Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Minority Staff Director and Counsel Amy B. Newhouse, Chief Clerk ------ OVERSIGHT OF GOVERNMENT MANAGEMENT, THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUBCOMMITTEE GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio, Chairman TED STEVENS, Alaska RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois FRANK LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire MARK PRYOR, Arkansas Andrew Richardson, Staff Director Marianne Clifford Upton, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel Kevin R. Doran, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ------ Opening statements: Page Senator Voinovich............................................ 1 WITNESSES March 29, 2004 Hon. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner, Social Security Administration................................................. 7 Hon. Hal Daub, Chairman, Social Security Advisory Board.......... 15 Robert E. Robertson, Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security, U.S. General Accounting Office....................... 17 Erik Williamson, Assistant Director, Ohio Bureau of Disability Determination.................................................. 18 Hon. D. Kevin Dugan, Vice President, Association of Administrative Law Judges...................................... 29 James A. Hill, President, Chapter 224, National Treasury Employees Union, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration........................................ 31 Marcia Margolius, Esq., Brown and Margolius, L.P.A............... 32 Alphabetical List of Witnesses Barnhart, Hon. Jo Anne B.: Testimony.................................................... 7 Prepared statement........................................... 45 Daub, Hon. Hal: Testimony.................................................... 15 Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 55 Dugan, Hon. D. Kevin: Testimony.................................................... 29 Prepared statement with an attachment........................ 126 Hill, James A.: Testimony.................................................... 31 Prepared statement........................................... 133 Margolous, Marcia, Esq.: Testimony.................................................... 32 Prepared statement........................................... 144 Robertson, Robert E.: Testimony.................................................... 17 Prepared statement........................................... 107 Williamson, Erik: Testimony.................................................... 18 Prepared statement........................................... 121 APPENDIX ``Disability Service Improvement,'' submitted by Commissioner Barnhart....................................................... 146 ``Impact of Not Passing a Budget On Time,'' submitted by Commissioner Barnhart.......................................... 147 ``Category Hiring vs. Rule of Three,'' submitted by Commissioner Barnhart....................................................... 148 Letter to Hon. George V. Voinovich from Jo Anne B. Barnhart...... 149 Questions for the Record from Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart... 151 THE ROAD TO RECOVERY: SOLVING THE SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY BACKLOG ---------- MONDAY, MARCH 29, 2004 U.S. Senate, Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia Subcommittee, of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9 a.m., in the Vocational Guidance Services Headquarters, 2235 East 55th Street, Cleveland, Ohio, Hon. George V. Voinovich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. Present: Senator Voinovich. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN VOINOVICH Senator Voinovich. The hearing will come to order. I would like to open by thanking the Vocational Guidance Services for allowing us to use this very wonderful, brand new facility. And I think the people of Cleveland are fortunate to have such a nice facility. And, of course, this organization has a long history going back until 1890. So sometimes we think that some of the things we are dealing with today are just new on the scene, the last several decades. But the fact is that the challenges have been around since that time and it is nice to know the community recognized the challenge back in 1890. I want to thank all of you for coming today. Congressional hearings are an integral part of the legislature and oversight process. I serve as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, the Federal Workforce and the District of Columbia. Ms. Barnhart, you should be familiar with my Subcommittee since you worked for Senator Roth on the Governmental Affairs Committee before he went to the Finance Committee. Ms. Barnhart. Yes, I was. Senator Voinovich. It is a pleasure to hold this hearing on the Social Security Disability process which impacts many Ohioans including 180,000 people whose applications were processed at the State level last year. I want you to know my opening statement is going to be a bit longer. Ordinarily I have three or four other senators sitting with me, so I'm taking advantage of their time but it will be for the better. We are going to examine the cause of the Social Security Disability backlog and, more importantly, Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart's approach to the overall process. The Social Security program is a separate agency retirement program. I think people think of Social Security and know about a couple other programs that come within the purview of Social Security. It also includes Disability Insurance (DI), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Last year those two programs alone paid 107 billion dollars in benefits to roughly 14.5 million disabled workers and family members. Now, during my time in the Senate I have become familiar with the problems of the disability process. In fact, Senator DeWine and I currently have 360 disability cases open on behalf of our constituents. These are people frustrated with the system and have come to us for our help. In my time in the Senate we have assisted about 950 Ohioans with disability cases. In addition to the case load that we have in our constituency office in Columbus, I know there are thousands of constituents waiting for a hearing and trying to get through the red tape. The fact of the matter is that the disability process should be so efficient that the Members of Congress should not have to intervene on behalf of people who are frustrated with the system. And sometimes, Commissioner, perhaps we don't help the matter because we get involved and we try to expedite certain cases because of extenuating circumstances. But I will never forget when I became governor of Ohio we had a disastrous situation with the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation, which I refer to as the silent killer of jobs. And our goal was to streamline the process. State legislators were constantly contacting the Bureau on behalf of Ohio residents. And after 8 years we eliminated that problem. The Bureau stopped getting letters because the system was handling the needs of the people that were going through the process. As many of you know, the Cleveland Social Security Office of Hearings and Appeals, OHA, has one of the longest processing times for disability cases in the Nation. And that's one of the reasons why we have so many cases come to us in our constituency office. Currently, the national processing time at the hearing level is 368 days. The processing time in Cleveland is an astounding 550 days. Unfortunately, residents throughout Ohio face similar delays in three hearing offices in Cincinnati 412 days, Columbus 477 days, Dayton 381 days. These are all times way above the national average. When examining the case load in Cleveland, it is evident slow processing time is only part of the problem. For instance, at the end of last month, the Cleveland hearing office had a backlog of 8,796 cases of which 5,461 had yet to be assigned to a particular judge. Those are just numbers but, folks, there are people behind those numbers. Commissioner Barnhart joins us today to talk about how she will resolve this situation. I mentioned to her the 65,000 people that she has responsibility over, and I was with Mr. Daub who brought it to my attention, there's another 15,000 that work in the State organizations. That's a lot of people. I thank you, Commissioner, for taking your time to be here today. I am honored you came to Cleveland. I can assure you your visit here and the visits of the other witnesses are going to be worthwhile for you because I'm holding this hearing to help you. I would like to commend you for not only recognizing the shortcomings of the disability system but for trying to work with your stakeholders to improve the disability process. I'm going to ask how much involvement your stakeholders have. Your challenge is to utilize today's technology to update the disability process that was created back in 1956. To accomplish this task, you must work within the confines of the Federal bureaucracy while balancing the needs of several key stakeholders. Given these parameters, it is evident that your work is cut out for you. We all are very critical of the current situation and want to know how Congress can help you out, and make it easier for you to do your work. However, we can't fully appreciate your task until we understand some of the problems. Unfortunately there does not appear to be one root cause of the backlog. I am only going to mention a few. Instead, several complicated interrelated factors seem to contribute to the crushing case load. One is the outdated processing system which needs to be examined and improved. There seems to be a number of steps within the disability process including the State operation process, reconsideration, the hearings, and the appeals. Applicants can even end up in supreme court. It is unbelievable. There's specific human capital management challenges, including the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) hiring freeze and the hearing process improvement. In addition, perhaps your budget request did not receive adequate funding during the appropriations process. And I am also sure people do not understand the fact that we have not been able to pass a budget on time and have had to move our appropriations into January. We have done that twice now. That makes it very difficult for an agency to figure out what their budgets are going to be and, seemingly, the media completely overlooks the fact that this happens. Again, Congress will try this year to get it done on time but it is easier said than done. According to a January 2001 report issued by the Social Security Advisory Board the disability infrastructure was, ``ill-equipped to handle today's massive and complex workload.'' That was back in January 2001. In fact, the system itself has changed very little since it was first created. However, since the disability programs are expected to expand by 35 percent by 2012, it is imperative this outdated infrastructure receive an overhaul. Commissioner, I would like to know how you plan on improving the process. Second, in January of this year GAO issued human capital challenges facing State Disability Determinations Services, DDS. It outlines three key changes facing DDS across the Nation, high turnover, recruiting and hiring difficulties and gaps in key skilled areas. From an organizational standpoint, the current operating structure between the Social Security Administration and the State Disability Determinations Services is certainly a unique alignment. I would like to know if the Commissioner thinks this is the most efficient way to run the disability system. Erik Williamson, from the Ohio Bureau of Disability Determination is here to discuss how they manage their human capital challenges. I am also interested in learning how they manage their case load and what steps they have taken to keep their processing time close to the national average. Third, in 1996 the merit system, MSPB, ruled the OPM scoring system unfairly favored veterans over nonveterans. This ruling started a 7-year hiring freeze of ALJs and ultimately affects Social Security's ability to manage the disability program. SSA currently employs 1,000 administrative law judges out of the government's 1,200 judges. During ALJ's hiring freeze OPM took steps to minimize the shortage of judges at SSA by filling a motion to vacate the MSPB order. The staffing challenges did not dissipate even though the board lifted the stay in September 2001 allowing SSA to hire additional ALJs. The question I have is, why did it take so long for the ALJ hiring freeze to be resolved. That in itself may be something we ought to look at. I wonder if this is symptomatic of the Federal appeals process in general. The ALJ issue should have been resolved in a couple years. If this were the case, we would not have had a scarcity of ALJs. On February 20, 2003, as I mentioned the Federal circuit ruled that the ALJ scoring formula was applied lawfully and did not violate the veterans preference. This rule was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 2004, almost 8 years later. Ms. Barnhart. Something like that. Senator Voinovich. Fortunately the ALJ hiring freeze is over. Social Security Administration will hire 50 new judges and I appreciate it if you can provide insight regarding the number of judges assigned to Cleveland and Ohio to deal with the backlogs we seem to have as differentiated from some other States. Frankly, I would like to know whether 50 judges is enough to get the job done. In addition, does the list of potential ALJs contain competent and qualified candidates, is your pay scale competitive, and is your budget adequate. These are some of the questions that we need to explore. For instance, I know State ODS in Ohio wanted to hire 20 employees last year but were only able to find 17 qualified employees. Some of these recruitment challenges may stem from the fact that your pay scale may not be adequate or we may need to do a better job of recruiting employees to take on these jobs. Finally, regarding the backlog, can be attributed to the hearing process improvement (HPI). This three phase initiative was implemented between January and November 2000. The question I have is that November 2000, this was the last year of the Clinton Administration, why would you ever undertake such an extensive project in the last year of your administration on an overhaul that his administration should have been working on during the first 7 years. Maybe I'm being a little critical but my last year as governor I realized that and I didn't take on new initiatives. Our mindset was to wrap up any projects and get some things done rather than starting a whole new process. Based on reports from the GAO and the SSA inspector general, the HPI initiative did not have the desired effect. And the Commissioner inherited an ineffective program. Prior to HPI, the average national processing time for disability cases in fiscal year 1999 was 280 days, 2 years later 336 days. HPI was going to improve the system? As I mentioned earlier, the current national processing time for disability is 368 days. According to GAO the failure of the HPI initiative in part is the result of attempting to implement large scale changes too quickly without resolving known problems. I would like to know who designed the HPI, was it a consultant firm? How often were the people actually doing the work? Were they asked about how they could improve the system, and the issue of how long it takes to get the job done? Right now there are people complaining that we came up with a new Medicare prescription drug benefit. And a lot of people I see at meetings say it will take until 2006 to get it done. All we have is the end of this year, 2004 and 2005, that is a major undertaking to provide this kind of benefit to millions of Americans. We want to make sure it is done right, and I think that underscores, Commissioner, that you can't snap your fingers and expect something is going to get done overnight. These are some, but not all, of the reasons for the backlog. Commissioner Barnhart, I would like to know what you are doing to improve the situation but also would like to offer you some advice. Woody Hayes, the Ohio State football coach, said that you win with people. That's what it is about. If you think about it, his words apply to the disability process as well. In order to effectively streamline and improve the disability process, you have to have the right people with the right skills and knowledge and the right places at the right time. Most importantly, however, your approach will only be successful if it improves the process to the applicants themselves. Folders sitting in dockets across the country represent people with serious health related problems. Those individuals are my constituents and your clients and they deserve a better system. I just received a weekly report from my staff about hangups and busy signals at SSA call centers. SSA's telephone service conducted a survey with the National Council of Security Management Association and 93 percent of the managers at the local Social Security offices and 73 percent of the managers for 1-800 numbers claim their office is not providing acceptable telephone service. This gets to the point, answering the phone is vital to serving the American public and somebody ought to get on that one right away to make sure that gets done. Before I recognize the Commissioner for her opening remarks, I would like to read excerpts from a letter I received from a constituents in Pemberville. We asked her if it would be all right to read her letter and make it a part of the hearing this morning. Her letter personifies the hardship that occurs because of a lengthy and drawn out disability process. I asked consent that it be made part of the record and since I'm running the hearing it will be. And it is a very well written letter. And I wouldn't be sharing it with you but it just does a super job of laying out the situation. ``On September 20, 2002, I suffered a brainstem stroke. My life as I have known it to be would be forever changed from that day forth. My road to recovery was long and grueling. When I inquired from my physicians how long it might take for my recovery, I was told up to a year or longer. That became very distressing news for me because I began to wonder how I was going to manage financially for that length of time. ``After much urging from immediate family, primary physician and stroke related physician I began the process of filing for Social Security Disability in November 2002. Had I known then what I know now, I may have reconsidered that decision. The paperwork alone is a very lengthy, time consuming matter. ``I received my first notice that I was not qualifying for purposes Social Security Disability or Supplemental Security Income. I refiled for a second determination. Once again, a mountain of paperwork and once again my claim was denied. ``My local Social Security office informed me that the next step would be a third filing and a hearing before a Social Security judge. I was also told it would take another 12 months before I would be granted a hearing. The system is not structured in such a manner as to accommodate someone such as me. It is a system that only looks at me as a number, not as an individual. Every time I have contacted the Social Security administration I am first asked for my Social Security number and then, only then, do I become a person with a name. ``The changes that have occurred in my life over the past year have been devastating for me. In a nutshell, since my stroke I have lost my job, my home, my health insurance, and the majority of my savings. ``I want to know why it is necessary to endure such a cumbersome and long, drawn out process. I truly believe the system is set up for the average citizen to become so discouraged they discontinue filing their claim. It seems to me someone like me gets swallowed up in the big sea of bureaucracy of the Social Security system. I am a number with no face or voice. ``The system needs to be revamped. My voice needs to be heard. I need to know there is someone out there who is listening and someone who cares.'' Commissioner, I know you have heard these stories before, perhaps not as eloquently as this woman has written. I would like to add if anyone else here today is experiencing similar difficulties, the Social Security Administration has staff in room 103, to talk to you about your case. Commissioner, I am anxious to hear from you. I apologize to you for taking so long in my opening statement but I thought it would kind of bring everything together and I want to thank you and I want to thank all the other witnesses that have taken time, many of you to come long distances to be here with us today. It is the custom of this Subcommittee that all witnesses be sworn in. So I, therefore, ask all of today's witnesses, are they all here, if you all stand I will administer the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Senator Voinovich. Let the record show that everyone answered in the affirmative. I also would like to ask if the witnesses here today would limit their statements to no more than 5 minutes. I want every witness to know your written testimony will be entered into the record and be reviewed. The only witness that I'm going to make an exception to is the Commissioner herself. You've got a big job and you came from Washington, you are here today and we thank you for coming here today and look forward to hearing from you. TESTIMONY OF HON. JO ANNE B. BARNHART,\1\ COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Ms. Barnhart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for providing this opportunity to return to Ohio to discuss my approach for improving the disability determination process and also to talk about the initiatives we have underway to improve service right here in Cleveland. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Barnhart appears in the Appendix on page 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you know, I heard earlier this year from many of your constituents about their experiences and concerns with the current disability process. And holding this hearing is clearly evidence of your personal commitment to the Social Security program and people we serve. I do appreciate that. When I became Commissioner, I pledged to improve the Social Security Disability process. Last fall I presented my approach for improving the disability determination process to Congress and since then I have met with the House and Senate staffs, SAA employees and groups involving every staff of the disability determination process to discuss this new approach. I met with the representatives for the attorneys in Social Security, representatives of the ALJs and ALJs themselves, and many advocacy organizations. In fact, I kept track of all the groups I met with and would be happy to provide a list of the meetings for the record. I personally held sessions to discuss proposals. Senator Voinovich. I would like to have them because it would let me know of the allies we might have.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ ``Disability Service Improvement List,'' submitted by Commissioner Barnhart appears in the Appendix on page 146. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Barnhart. I have incorporated what I think are some very important changes in my approach to shorten the decision time and pay benefits expeditiously to people who are obviously disabled, as well as test new ways to help people with disabilities who want to return to work to do so. I have provided a complete description of my new approach to disability determination in my written testimony, and for time constraint purposes I won't walk through the entire thing. It takes me 40 minutes. I don't want to take more time than the Chairman. In January of this year we began rolling out what I believe is the cornerstone of my strategy to improve the disability process. The Accelerated Electronic Disability system, (AeDib). This new system is going to eliminate the current process of mailing, locating and manually organizing paper folders. That may not sound like much, but based on the content of the analysis I did on the disability process when I became Commissioner, we estimate it takes approximately 60 days to mail folders back and forth from one office to another and that it takes approximately 100 days to locate files at various stages in the process. That may sound like a lot and it is a lot but when you are staging, as we call it, over a million to two million cases a year, it's understandable that it's sometimes hard to find paper files. Senator Voinovich. That was exactly the way the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Comp was organized. We had files in boxes and they would move the boxes around in the State and people would loose the boxes. Are you going to put everything electronically right from the beginning and make it a paperless system? Ms. Barnhart. That's right. It affords us the opportunity to revolutionize the way we process disability cases. We specifically want to get to the issues in Cleveland. Now work submitted from one place to another can be done with a push of a button in terms of record review and that kind of thing and preparation of the case. By moving to electronic processing, it will reduce processing time by 25 percent. And I'm pleased to tell you that Ohio is scheduled to have this system starting to run in late September. As we move ahead, I would be more than happy to keep you informed of our progress. I'm pleased to say that we rolled out in Mississippi on January 26, and, frankly, Mr. Chairman, this is a good example of the approach that I have taken in general in the agency dealing with the disability issue. When I came into the agency, electronic disability was on scheduled for 7 years from the time that I came in. I said, no, that won't do. I have 5 years left in this term. I would like to accomplish it during my term as Commissioner, going to the point you made of starting things you have the opportunity to actually complete. And I asked my staff if they had all the resources they needed and I promise you we sat down and talked about how long will it take to begin implementation. We decided it would take 23 months, which was January of this year. We met that start date in Mississippi. We are moving on to South Carolina and gradually moving from one State to another and doing one region at a time. We are currently on schedule and, in fact, we had a couple States ask if we could come sooner to them than originally planned. I think that's very significant because you and I both know the grapevine among State directors, if AeDib weren't working, other States wouldn't be interested in having it get in sooner. We are working through the issues as they arise. It's going very well and it's one of my top priorities. In the meantime, while we have begun the electronic disability process and announced a new approach, I am working with all the stakeholders, as you put it, in order to finalize that approach. I do think it is important to point out that when I introduced my approach, I called it that because the problems in this system are so immense that it really requires an all encompassing perspective of the system working together to come up with a solution. I really didn't want to have something I developed and lay it out and say this is it and it's all signed, sealed, and delivered. I laid down an approach and I'm meeting with all the interested parties before finalizing it. Because of the time it will take to do that, I estimate implementing a new approach probably couldn't happen until October 2005 at the earliest. This is largely because it's predicated on successful implementation of electronic disability, which will take 18 months to roll out nationwide. There are situations like the one here in Cleveland we had to take short-term action. We had to take action to work as quickly and expeditiously as we possibly could to address the challenges faced by offices like Cleveland. To assist with the workload one of the things we did is we brought back retired administrative law judges and reemployed them on a part-time basis. Senator Voinovich. Were you able to bring them back and have them work without---- Ms. Barnhart. There's like a senior ALJ program. Senator Voinovich. They don't have to give up their retirement, sort of like senior service, like a Federal judge? Ms. Barnhart. Yes, I believe we used that. And you went into great detail as to the delay of MSPB and no question that has had a very detrimental effect. We have identified 50 judges now coming on April 26 and three of those judges will be coming to Cleveland June 1. From April 26 to June 1 they will be in training at headquarters. I have plans later this summer to bring on an additional 50 judges which means a hundred will be hired this year. You asked me if we had enough ALJs. We don't, as you pointed out. We have approximately a thousand now. I'm hiring a hundred. Ideally I would like to add a hundred more. That is simply a function of the budget situation. In addition to hiring ALJs and using---- Senator Voinovich. Are your administrative costs part of mandatory spending or subject to---- Ms. Barnhart. Subject to the discretionary cap. It's not clear whether the Appropriations Committee---- Senator Voinovich. You'll have to compete with other things in the discretionary budget. Ms. Barnhart. There's no question that has an effect. Last year the President requested an 8.5 percent increase for SSA and we ended up with a 5.4 percent increase. This year the President requested 6.8 percent and we are hoping obviously to come very close to getting that. When we look at the budget situation, obviously there certainly is no guarantee. I think it's significant that in both years when the budget situation was certainly a pressing one, that the President requested for SSA more than twice the percentage increase for the whole Federal Government. It's a very significant increase relative to other agencies. Not getting that 8.5 percent increase obviously had an effect and if we don't get the 6.5 percent increase it will have an effect. You correctly pointed out the whole issue of being able to hire staff because of the passed budget is very significant. We basically had to put a curb on hiring until the appropriation was passed because we didn't know what level of funding we were going to have. Obviously I wasn't going to have to run a furlough. We have been hiring judiciously. Just last Friday we completed our opinion on the initial budget, what we call budget scrub, since the appropriation was passed and so I will be putting out more FTEs around the country for people to be brought on board. But we have had to proceed in a judicious manner until we were confident of the level of appropriation we were going to receive. Senator Voinovich. What I would like you to do, sorry for interrupting your testimony, is maybe give me a one pager on the disastrous effect of not passing the budget on time because I'm trying to convince my colleagues, and so is Ted Stevens, that we have to act before October 1.\1\ However, with the Senate's schedule this year it's going to be difficult to do it. Over the past few years, we have delayed passing the appriations bills. I am afraid this year that we'll just delay, delay and come back after the election with a big omnibus appropriations bill. I would like to get it done before the end of the year but it could end up in January. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ ``Impact of Not Passing a Budget On Time,'' submitted by Ms. Barnhart appears in the Appendix on page 147. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Barnhart. That's a disadvantage to the Federal agency. You have a great interest in the Federal personnel system, and obviously our best recruiting time is summer up to early fall when the kids are just graduating from college. We have direct hiring authority for outstanding scholars, who are students with an overall GPA of 3.5 or higher. If we don't know what our budget is going to be in January of the next year, then many of those talented young people would have chosen to go other places by the time we were able to offer them a job. So it's very significant for us in particular. In addition to adding to the ALJs, we have various hearing offices in the Chicago region as well as some outside of the region, that are assisting Cleveland with its work load. We plan to transfer 5,200 cases from Cleveland to other hearing offices. Over approximately 1,500 of those cases will go to our Boston region, and approximately 3,500 have been transferred within the Chicago region to other hearing offices. I have also been moving toward using video conferences, which gives us the capability of conducting hearings via video. I think time and distance are very important factors, particularly with a pared down ALJ core and hiring delays due to the Ashdale case. Having the judges spend time traveling as opposed to conducting hearings is not efficient and sometimes it's much more convenient rather than traveling to that office to go to a location that has video capability. This also makes transfer of cases possible because claimants in Ohio don't have to leave Ohio in order for their case to be heard by a judge outside of Ohio. We have also sent in a team of attorneys to supervise and to screen pending cases to make a decision without a hearing, so-called on-the-record decisions, and we have ALJs travel to conduct hearings. I want to assure you the hearing and appeal staff is actively involved in the challenges of the Cleveland office. Our Chief ALJ, David Washington, has been to Cleveland several times meeting with management and heard a docket of cases himself in May. In addition, with the VTC equipment a regional chief judge in Chicago heard 45 cases from the Cleveland office and my understanding is he plans to hear 45 more. We have conducted onsite meetings with management offices and hearing offices, and have examined a number of administrative best practices. We expect these actions to significantly reduce the time to get a decision. We know and understand how important it is for the claimant and family members who are waiting for a decision. Everyone at Social Security realizes the folders on our desk represent parties. These big tall folders aren't just files. They are people whose lives are affected by the job we do and how well we do it. These people are in dire need, and are counting on Social Security for support. I assure you this is a responsibility no SSA employee takes lightly, from teleservice representatives to claim paralegals to attorneys and judges. Everyone at Social Security is committed to providing the kind of service the American people expect and desire. I thank you for holding this hearing and I would be happy to answer any questions and address any issues you would like me to. Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. The first one I wanted to address is the electronic disability folder and you pretty well answered that in your opening statement. You think you are going to wrap that up by October 2005? Ms. Barnhart. I think AeDib will be implemented 18 months from January--June of next year. My thought was if we are improving a new process approach we need to not just implement it but have 6 or 7 months experience with it. That's why I was looking at no sooner of October 2005 for implementing a new process. Senator Voinovich. Ohio is June? Ms. Barnhart. September of this year. Senator Voinovich. And Ohio is part of Region V? Ms. Barnhart. Yes, Region V. Senator Voinovich. Your opening statement was very thorough and you have done a good job answering my questions. In October 2003 the Social Security Advisory Board issued a report entitled ``The Social Security Definition of Disability.'' Do you think that we need to update that definition or would you think it would be such a political hot potato that we ought not to bother with it? Ms. Barnhart. I didn't get into that. I have limited my improvements to process improvements I could accomplish without legislation. That's one thing I didn't mention. The new approach I designed and presented can all be implemented with regulation or administrative issuances and I thought that was important because that means the process is something I could actually accomplish and see through to its completion during my term as Commissioner. My term expires in January 2007. The definition of disability obviously would require statutory change and I think it is certainly a very complicated issue, one where people have diverse views about it. GAO did place all of the Federal disability programs, as you know, on the high risk area. And I have had several conversations with David Walker, the controller general, about that. The Federal disability programs were not a high risk area from a management perspective. David was very clear about that in our discussions. They were considered high-risk because the disability programs as they currently exist were created in the 1950's and don't necessarily reflect what happened societally over that time period. With the passage of the ADA almost 11 years ago, attitudes about people with disabilities and their abilities changed dramatically. Back to work legislation that Congress passed in 1999 reflects---- Senator Voinovich. No one has taken advantage. Ms. Barnhart. Some people are and we are working on that, Senator. So I think there are a lot of things that contribute, and will contribute to that debate and discussion on disability. It's difficult but it definitely would be the next step after improving the process to look at the definition of disability if it were going to happen. Senator Voinovich. One of the things I have been working on, human capital practices and I have been working on that since 1999. When we passed the Homeland Security Bill we were able to add numerous flexibilities for all the Federal agencies and Senator Akaka and I worked on that. For example, hiring, allowing an agency to use a category rank in hiring instead of the rule of three. Are you using categorical hiring instead of the rule of three? Ms. Barnhart. I don't know for certain. I would be happy to find out and let you know, Senator.\1\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ ``Category Hiring vs. Rule of Three,'' submitted by Ms. Barnhart appears in the Appendix on page 148. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Voinovich. How about voluntary attrition and voluntary retirement? Are you using these flexibilities? Ms. Barnhart. We have used early out, which is a voluntary decision to leave, with great success. It's one of the things that has helped the agency level out the big retirement wave. We anticipated we will have lost over the next 7 years half of the people in the agency. This is more than the number of people who have retired in the last 10 years. Senator Voinovich. American people are not aware of that. I got involved in this in 1999 because I wanted to bring quality management to the Federal Government. Currently, the Federal Government is in the midst of a human capital crisis. Seventy percent of the senior executives could retire next year if they wanted to. You have a real challenge in terms of retirement. Do you think you have thought about new flexibilities you might need to make your job easier? I would ask you to share those with me. Ms. Barnhart. I haven't. I'm glad you asked me. One of the things I mentioned is the outstanding scholar program for direct hiring authority. In other words, when we identify a talented young person at job fairs or recruiting efforts with an overall Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.5 or higher we are allowed to directly hire that person. If that person had a 3.0 GPA, we should be allowed to directly hire him or her because that's an accomplishment and certainly speaks to the individual's ability. It also broadens the pool for us. One of the things we really need to do is to encourage young people to come in to the government, to become the dedicated kind of employees that we are very fortunate to have. Senator Voinovich. Do you have any contact with the Partnership of Public Service that Max Stier is leading. They have established a call to serve initiative and are working with colleges and universities to build interest in Federal service. Ms. Barnhart. I haven't personally. The deputy for human resources has. One of the other things that would be possible would be speaking again to the budget situation. If we hire an employee as a term or temporary employee, sometimes it's the prudent thing to do. If you don't know what your budget is going to be, it would obviously be helpful. When we find out we are able to keep an individual then we can then make them permanent. If they work very well as a temporary or term employee to convert them to permanent status. We would have a person who is already trained and instead of having to go through all the steps to get there. Having that capability would be important. One place that is going to be important is the prescription drug program. We are actually responsible for implementing part of the program and people are going to come to us to apply for their benefits just as they do for Medicare. To handle the workload, we estimate we will be dealing with somewhere around 30 to 40 million people. We are going to have to bring a couple thousand people on board. And then obviously once we get through the people who are currently on the rolls, we'll have an ongoing workload of a million and a half a year so we won't need all these people. It would be wonderful knowing we were not going to lose 5,000 people a year, that we could hire right from that trained pool. Even if it's in prescription drugs, they will have government experience and it would be wonderful to use them as a hiring pool for us to replenish our ongoing retirees. I have other things but won't take time now. Senator Voinovich. I would be interested in having you put them down for us. We are still trying to get David Walker's new flexibilities through. And I will be at meetings in the Pentagon to talk about what they are doing with the nonuniformed employees in the Defense Department. But if there are some things we can provide to help expedite your hiring needs, I would like to hear about it and we'll be glad to work on it. Ms. Barnhart. I appreciate that. I will send something up to your staff. Senator Voinovich. Anything else you would like to share with us? Ms. Barnhart. I wanted to make a few points on a couple things. I was taking notes. We implemented starter kits for disability applicants that is going to be mailed out soon. Senator Voinovich. What is that? Ms. Barnhart. As in the rather eloquent letter from your constituent, there's an enormous volume of paperwork. With the starter kit that idea is someone applies for disability and they'll receive this and it gives very simple instructions and explains the kind of documents they need to have. Senator Voinovich. Who put that together? Ms. Barnhart. We did at Social Security. Senator Voinovich. Did you hire a consultant or---- Ms. Barnhart. We did it inside. We worked with claims representatives, teleservice representatives, and people in our program service centers. When we have undertaken projects, my approach has been actually to set up internal workgroups. For example, the service delivery budget was one of my major activities during my first year. It really has been key for all the other things we have done. It budgets where we want to be in 5 years and what are the resources it takes to get us there. The service delivery budget was based on the desire to eliminate backlogs, keep current with claims and special workloads to make the technology investments we need and so forth. My approach is to bring in people from the district offices, field office, program service centers located around the country, and our hearing offices. It's very important to have people who are doing the work be involved in fixing the program because we sometimes form an idea in Washington or Baltimore about what is causing a problem but we are not on the ground working with it. So people from all of the different parts of the agency that needed to be involved with the starter kit were involved. I'm hoping that it's going to have very positive results for the claimants. What we have seen in the pilots we ran on the starter kit was that the number of people who had higher percentage of the documentation and the information when they came to the interviews increased fairly dramatically. I have no reason to believe that won't be the case. It's being rolled out across the Nation. You mentioned HPI, and I don't want to go back and relive history I wasn't a part of. I was watching it play out from my perspective on the Social Security Advisory Board. But I think one of the points you made is really worth mentioning time and time again. It took us many years to get to this situation we are in today. And I wish that I could wave a magic wand and get us out of it tomorrow but that is not possible. I did start working on these from the moment I was confirmed in November 2001. It was actually one of the board members who signed that January report you cited from the Social Security Advisory Board that pointed out the problems with the disability system. And there is no question that having had that experience on the board helped position me better coming into the agency to understand the really nitty-gritty the agency faced. I want to take this opportunity to say Hal Daub, the chairman, is testifying later today but the board continues to be a wonderful place to bounce ideas and to hold my feet to the fire to make sure we actually move ahead on a regular basis. I think that pretty much covered the comments that I wanted to make just in response to your opening comments except finally to say I do appreciate your interest and your dedication to helping solve this problem. There is no question it's going to take the full support of everyone in Congress. We need to get the budget. When people ask me what's the one thing they can do to be helpful, to try to make sure we get our budget. Last year the Senate voted the full amount as the President requested. It was in Congress that we received a reduction. So I'm hoping I can count again on the Senate to vote 6.8 percent for Social Security. It is money put to good use. I will point out the first full year's---- Senator Voinovich. What budget? Ms. Barnhart. Fiscal year 2005. The people in this agency work very hard and they care very much. I travel around quite a bit to meet with employees in the agency and many are here today. And I think it's important always when I testify on these problems to separate the problems from the people in the agency. What I would like to remind people is that, if the people in the agency were not working as hard as they are and as dedicated as they are to doing the job for the American people, the backlogs would be even greater than they are. The processing times would be longer than they are. I really appreciate the job they are doing. We need to get additional resources so we can provide the kind of service that you and all your constituents expect. It's definitely the kind of service we want to provide. Senator Voinovich. I really appreciate you being here. I have to tell you I'm very impressed with your testimony. I think it's good that we have somebody who really understands the problems of the agencies. I'm impressed with the fact you are looking at this long term and you understand there are some short term things you need to get done. I will monitor what you said today and I will remind you. I will make a deal if Ohio receives AeDib in June, I will send you a beautiful letter, if not I will ask you what happened. Ms. Barnhart. You got a deal. Thank you very much. Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. Ms. Barnhart. I want to mention that I have previous commitments and I have to leave immediately to go to the airport. I did read the testimony of all of the other witnesses today and I want to say I have worked very closely with some of the witnesses coming up, Jim Hill and Kevin Dugan, I met Ms. Margolius before while I was in Cleveland. I appreciate the cooperative spirits and comments they made in their testimony. I have staff staying to listen to the entire hearing and be able to provide me with information. Senator Voinovich. Thank you for being here today. Our next panel is Hal Daub, Chairman of the Social Security Advisory Board, former Congressman and Mayor of Omaha, Nebraska. Robert Robertson is Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security at GAO who has been paying a great deal of attention to what has been happening at the Social Security Administration. Erik Williamson is Assistant Director at Ohio Bureau of Disability Determination. Mr. Daub, we'll start with you first. Thank you for coming here. TESTIMONY OF HON. HAL DAUB,\1\ CHAIRMAN, SOCIAL SECURITY ADVISORY BOARD Mr. Daub. Thank you very much. I want to thank you for this very timely hearing. There are few of your colleagues who even want to deal with this problem, it is complex, is it technical. And in the process of preparing for this hearing I want to thank you for the attentiveness of your staff who really did dig deeply into the problems that the system does have and it should be noted they have done a very good job and are prepared now to deal with the issue and to support you. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Daub appears in the Appendix on page 55. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ten years ago, Congress created a bi-partisan Social Security Advisory Board to recommend ways to improve the Social Security programs. The Advisory Board travelled to every region in the Nation. We have talked to those involved at every level--both those who run the program and those who seek help from it. We have found widespread consensus--with which we agree--that this is a program with serious problems. Disability decisions should be fair and consistent throughout the country and at each level of adjudication. We have found large and unexplained inconsistencies. The program lacks a comprehensive quality management system to assure careful and uniform application of the law. Improvements are needed to develop and to apply the same standards as objectively as possible at all levels of the decisionmaking. We are very pleased to see the Commissioner take bold steps to address these issues. To move ahead with major improvements in technology is a leap the agency needs to better meet its challenges. I urge you not to underestimate the scope of the problem. As your title for this hearing states, proposed process changes and technology improvements can put the Social Security Disability programs on the road to recovery. Traveling all the way down that road will also require addressing needs such as more--and more uniform--training. There must be a stronger policy development capacity. Better human capital planning is also essential. The crucial factor for really achieving these goals is an adequate level of resources. As the Board travelled around the country we were impressed by the dedicated and hardworking employees in Social Security offices and State disability determination services. They have been increasing their productivity. The Commissioner has proposed changes that will allow even greater improvements. That will only happen if Congress provides sufficient resources to handle the ever-growing caseload. The agency has carefully developed a 5 year service delivery budget for bringing the backlogs down to a manageable level. But a vital increase in administrative funding is needed and the President has endorsed a very modest increased funding level. It's now up to Congress to decide whether to provide those resources or opt for growing backlogs. The Commissioner described today her immediate plans for changes that she can quickly implement administratively. There certainly also is room for Congress to consider legislative improvements. The Social Security Advisory Board, for example, has urged Congress to consider changes such as creating a Social Security court and changes in the hearing process itself. Finally, there are larger issues that must be dealt with. Social Security Disability program uses a definition of disability that is a half century old. Many today feel that the focus on ``inability to work'' does a disservice to impaired individuals and we should find ways to change the program to better support the desire of those individuals to continue leading productive, self-sufficient lives. The Board has recently issued a report on the definition of disability and is sponsoring a forum on April 14 to further explore this important issue. In fact, Senator, during recess you are invited, and if not you, your staff, to join us for that forum. It will be held on the Senate side. Along with my full statement, I would like to submit for the record a copy of a Social Security Advisory Board report from October 2003.\1\ It is a report on the need for fundamental changes in the disability programs and on the definition of disability. All of our reports can be viewed on the Social Security website, www.socialsecurityadvisoryboard.gov. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The report entitled ``The Social Security Definition of Disability,'' submitted by Mr. Daub with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 58. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Senator Voinovich. Mr. Robertson, I would like to say before your testimony, I appreciate your tremendous cooperation and help I received from the General Accounting Office. David Walker and I have become very good friends over the years and I just want you to carry back to your associates how much this Senator appreciates the good work you are all doing at GAO. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT E. ROBERTSON,\1\ DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME SECURITY, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE Mr. Robertson. Thank you very much. Let me begin, Mr. Chairman, reiterating one of your opening comments. That is, this is just a wonderful new building to have this hearing in. I'm also very happy that you invited me here for a discussion of what has to be one of SSA's most pressing challenges--to produce timely, consistent, high quality decisions for people who are applying for disability benefits. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson appears in the Appendix on page 107. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As you indicated earlier, the stakes are high. The two programs we are talking about involve large numbers of people and large amounts of Federal resources. I'm going to be making four points this morning. The first is not news but it's certainly worth stating. That is, the SSA disability programs have in the past and currently continue to experience problems in terms of producing timely, consistent disability decisions. There is some good news in the area in that SSA has made some short-term gains in improving timeliness for part of its decisionmaking process. The bad news is that, as the Commissioner has noted on previous occasions, the SSA system has a long way to go. For example, over the past 5 years the average time it takes to receive a decision at the hearing level has increased by a month, from 316 to 344 days. Second, beyond decision timeliness and consistency, the disability program suffers from more fundamental problems related to the basic concept that disability determinations are based upon. It's been referred to in earlier statements. More specifically the programs are grounded in an outdated concept of disability that equates impairment with the inability to work. Under this concept a person is determined to be totally disabled or not. There is nothing in between. This all or nothing idea really is not in synch with medical advances and economic and social changes over the years that have resulted in greater work opportunity for people with disabilities. Further, employment assistance that could allow claimants to stay in the workforce or return to work and potentially remain off the disability rolls of Social Security are not offered until after a claimant has gone through a lengthy determination process to prove his or her inability to work. In short, the basic design of the program does little to recognize improved work opportunities for individuals with disabilities or to foster a return-to-work philosophy. As a brief aside here, the problems SSA faces with its disability program both in terms of the management of the program and the program's basic design are not unique. There are other Federal disability programs that face the same types of problems. Based on all of these concerns we placed the Federal disability programs, including those at SSA, on our high risk list in January 2003. My third point is to simply recognize and acknowledge that the Commissioner has placed a high priority on addressing problems in the disability program and is developing a strategy to improve the disability process. This has included expediting the new electronic disability folder and automated case processing system, proposing changes to the determination processing system intended to produce more accurate decisions, sooner, and testing concepts intended to foster a return to work at all stages of the process. My fourth and final point is to highlight what can only be termed as some very daunting challenges that face the Commissioner. Some of these have been mentioned earlier. More specifically, improvements in the claims processing time, are closely linked to successful implementation of the automated electronic case processing system. However, we have recently raised concerns about SSA's plan to accelerate this system's deployment. Additionally, we have reported that SSA faces human capital problems that affect the very people who are critical to implementing the proposed changes to the determination process. In particular, we found that the 5,600 disability examiners employed by the federally funded but State run DDSs, face high turnover, recruiting and hiring difficulties and gaps in key knowledge and skills. Finally, growing case loads can only exacerbate the challenges SSA faces. Between 2002 and 2010 SSA expects disability insurance roles to grow by about 35 percent. Mr. Chairman, that concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. Senator Voinovich. Mr. Williamson. TESTIMONY OF ERIK WILLIAMSON,\1\ ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, OHIO BUREAU OF DISABILITY DETERMINATION Mr. Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the invitation to participate in this hearing on improving the backlog of Social Security disability claims. The bureau is 100 percent funded by SSA and each State has a comparable Disability Determination Service. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Williamson appears in the Appendix on page 121. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would like to begin by briefly providing some background and data regarding the Ohio DDS. Ohio has the highest productivity rate of the country's 12 DDS programs and based on the number of cases received, Ohio program is the fifth largest in the Nation. During fiscal year 2003 Ohio produced over 183,285 Social Security Disability claims. Since fiscal year 1996 the number of claims processed by Ohio increased by 25 percent. During the same period our staff increased by 6.8 percent. The bureau has remained highly productive despite the disparity in resources and we are committed to making the most of the resources available to us. However, additional staffing commensurate with our increasing caseloads will be critical to ensure that services to the public are not severely impacted. To prepare our workforce for the changes we see approaching, we provided over 9,000 hours of training to staff including vocational issues, medical issues and change management and problem solving for our supervisors. To prepare for the electronic disability folder, we improved our hiring process to include a computer skills assessment and invested in an online electronic learning program. We regularly provide training on pertinent issues conducted by employees and medical consultants who are strong in these particular areas. And we created a mentoring program and job shadowing program. Training strains our productivity, but we realize the impact to our quality if we do not continue to provide relevant training. We ask that adequate resources for training be provided to help us to continuously improve the skills of our workforce. The Accelerated Electronic Disability Process will transition our business process into a totally paperless environment. The Ohio DDS is scheduled for rollout later this year. We see great benefit in the increased efficiency of moving to an electronic environment. We are also cognizant of the fact there will be a significant learning curve during implementation. We are encouraged by our preparation today and believe it will minimize the impact to our organization. However, we do have a few concerns. Other States in our region will not be in a position to help us during the transition as they will also be implementing the electronic folder. Ohio's caseload continues to grow at an ``unprecedented rate'' and we will need adequate staff to meet the challenges this presents. It takes 2 years for a recently hired adjudicator to complete training and work independently. In order to process the increased workload, the Ohio DDS budgeted to hired 80 employees during fiscal year 2004. It has received authorization to hire 20 due to budget restrictions. Perhaps most importantly, we need the process to become fully electronic as soon as possible. The key to this issue is the National Archives and Records Administration approving the electronic file as the officially recognized document. We do not have adequate resources to support both a paper and electronic system indefinitely, which will affect our ability to serve the public. We see tremendous advantage to this project and hope that we can move to the electronic environment quickly as possible. We agree improvements can, and need to be made, in the overall disability process. I will outline some of our concerns on the Commissioner's approach. In-line quality reviews. An in-line review process can identify potential problems early in the process before the claim is completed, saving time and resources for our claimants and the DDS. We strive to prepare our claims for the next level of review, and therefore, we have begun piloting the in-line review concept in conjunction with our end-of-line quality assurance efforts. We would add to Commissioner Barnhart's proposal implementation of formal quality review for the field offices to ensure accuracy of application forms and also for the regional expert review units and reviewing officials. We agree that centralized quality control would improve consistency over the current regional disability quality branch process. We are always willing to improve, and we would welcome national input to help us with the overall process. Additionally, as far as demonstration projects, we believe there is tremendous potential in exploring new ways of doing business. We are interesting in working in collaboration with the Ohio Vocational Rehabilitation bureau to determine if early intervention with SSDI applicants will help them to reenter the workforce and achieve financial independence. We would like to explore a temporary allowance project that will provide immediate cash and medical benefits for a specified period to applicants who are highly likely to benefit from aggressive medical care and/or vocational rehabilitation. We see great value in exploring these projects suggested by the Commissioner and look forward to the opportunity to work with SSA on the initiatives. In closing, I would like to emphasize our desire to work with internal and external components to improve the disability process. We strongly support the transition to the electronic environment and we are excited about the benefits it will bring to our organization. We are committed to providing the highest levels of public service possible and making the best use of our existing resources. We ask for your consideration in providing us with adequate funding to continue to offer the level of service expected of our organization in light of the growing demands that we face. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify and I would be happy to take any questions. Senator Voinovich. One of the Commissioner's approaches require State DDS examiners to fully document and explain the basis for their determination. The Commissioner contends this should result in more accurate decisions. In 2002 initial denials across the country ranged from 34 to 73\1/2\ percent which is an unbelievable difference. The Ohio DDS initial denial rate was about 70 percent, which was the fifth highest in the Nation. To what extent do your examiners document and explain their decision and do you feel that Commissioner's documentation requirement will improve the overall disability process at the State level. Mr. Williamson. Our adjudicators document their decisions in a PDN or personalize denial notice that goes to the claimant. The difference between what the Commissioner said would go into greater detail and perhaps be a far more technical audience to explain essentially how we got where we did in terms of the decision. We think that the centralized quality review that she's proposed would go a long way to adding consistency to the States. So I don't know if that answers your question. Senator Voinovich. Well, I mean it seems to me that more documentation requirements will cause more work or do you think that a standardized form will bring about a more accurate determination in regards to an individual and down the road result in less requests for reconsideration and appeals to the judges? Mr. Williamson. Frankly, I have to believe it would improve the process. My personal opinion and position of the agency is, I think, it would take more resources, it would take longer to do that. I think we have to decide that it may be an investment we need to make. Also in the Commissioner's plan she did indicate that resources would be redirected to DDS in terms of taking away some of the quick decisions and taking away the reconsideration step that would allow our staff more time to do that inter- department analysis. Mr. Daub. I look at it from a perspective that on the front end a little more time will be required and will be appropriately invested for a more thorough examination of that citizen's disability request. Then, as a result of that, a quicker decision can be made and the benefits will be delivered quicker. And then those claims that take a little more time will be so thoroughly documented that they won't be in the queue for a year and a half waiting for the administrative law judge process after reconsideration. If you look at the total process it will take more time and resources on the front end, but really shorten the appeal process dramatically. Senator Voinovich. One of the things we did with our workers' comp system was we had a procedure with these boards of revision--from a hearing it would go to the board of revision and we eliminated some of the procedural steps to streamline the process. Hearing people come in rather than doing it the way we were doing it in the past and it expedited things for the claimants. Has anybody looked at it, GAO looked at it, does this system make sense? Do you believe that having the States do the initial disability determination is the best way to get the job done? Would they be better decided by the Federal Government instead of the State? In other words, your retirement Mr. Williamson, you are part of the whole Public Employee Retirement System. Has anybody looked at that whole process procedurally? Mr. Robertson. Two points to make. The first one is that the decision itself, the disability determination itself, is a very complex, difficult decision to make. So you start with that and then you put that decision in a process that is, as Hal noted earlier, very fragmented--it involves 1,300 field officers, 50 some odd DDS's, and 140 hearing offices. That makes the determination process even more difficult. Senator Voinovich. Do you think the Commissioner, according to the information I have, would replace the State's reconsideration process with new SSA reviewing initiative? Mr. Robertson. I think the Commissioner is pushing for process improvements and looking at the process in its entirety. We haven't seen the details on a lot of the design yet and, of course, the devil is in the details. But much of what she is talking about in general makes sense. Mr. Daub. There are two changes, Mr. Chairman, that I don't think the Commissioner decided yet, but her approach to the process is looking at eliminating reconsideration and looking at the administrative law judge stage and subsequent appeal review being streamlined. It is amazing how many days it takes for a determination and then the appeals, as you point out. Interesting things are happening. In recessionary times, unemployment rises and disability claims tend to rise. The next thing that is happrning is the aging of our society. The baby boomers are coming in here. Disability tracks age; the older you get, the more disability claims come into the system. This movement into electronic files is absolutely critical. The whole reform process is predicated upon the electronic file. That has to work first. And assuming that is on track and resources are in place for that, the streamlining of the administrative review can occur. And the Commissioner has not decided yet which pieces will be taken out of the system but at least there are two that should cut a lot of processing time for the applicant. Senator Voinovich. It gets back to the issue of, Mr. Robertson, do you think Social Security has the staffing capacity at the Federal level to meet the challenges you discussed? One of the things, if I'm not mistaken, in the background material I read was that State disability determination systems are having human capital challenges. I hope that the Social Security Adminstration will work to alleviate these challenges. That is, why we elevated human capital as officers in each of the agencies and it's very important that they turn their reports in every year. In terms of SSA's last GPRA report we didn't think there was enough attention made to the staff capacity that would be needed to achieve the agency's goals. Mr. Robertson, I would like you to comment on that. Mr. Robertson. As you know, Mr. Chairman, SSA is in the process of really transforming itself. Its like taking a big ocean liner and trying to make it change directions. As you know, we have examined other organizations that have successfully transformed their operations. The absolute key to their success was the human capital aspect of their plans. From Social Security's standpoint, they have to have a strong human capital management plan. However, when we looked at the DDS part of it recently we saw some things lacking. Mr. Daub. The comment was made earlier that it takes about 2 years to train a person to make disability determinations and learn the medical listings. It's a very complex process. And that is just to recruit and then to retain that person in the State process long enough to get them trained. Now we are going to put them through a process of getting on-line and understanding that whole new complicated process. We see a turnover factor on human capital in this agency of about 13 percent. It's a resource issue. The 5-year budget plan that the Commissioner developed would have eliminated backlogs. That budget proposal did not occur but they'll do their very best, I'm sure, to try to handle that increasing case load. It is clearly a resource and training commitment that has to be made to turn this ship around. Senator Voinovich. Mr. Williamson, one of the things that the Commissioner mentioned was the fact that those States, for example, Mississippi have gone forward and implemented the program and seems to be happy about it. And the word at least around the country is it's a good system. First, do you hear good things about the system and, second, you mentioned something about training and I would like to know what you are doing in order to train your people so they can use the new system when it comes in. I know that's a lot of work because when I was county auditor we went from paper files to electronic files and frankly we had to retrain employees and some of them we weren't able to retrain. They weren't able to do it. This is a whole business of computer familiarity and all of the other tasks that are necessary. Also, from what I read about your operation I understand you've had some turnover problems. Let's put it this way, are your employees going to be trained enough when AeDib reaches Ohio? Are you going to be able to handle this system? Do you have training going on, do you have the number of people you need and so on? Mr. Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been doing significant training. We started E-learning to get everyone's skills up, computer skills assessment. We have training that Social Security provided us on what employees can expect in the new environment. We have a technological issue of getting all the equipment in and working, and working with our Legacy software and to make sure it's user friendly and working properly for our staff. We named one of our managers as project manager to oversee it from start to finish. And as I said, we have some concerns but we are very enthusiastic about getting the electronic folder in. And think it's going to provide significant benefits. While we are concerned somewhat about training, we think if we have the resources and staff we'll be able to meet that challenge. Senator Voinovich. You said two big ifs, resources and staff. What is the likelihood you are going to have resources and staff. Mr. Williamson. I think we'll get some of the staff we need and I think we'll get a fair number of the resources. Frankly, it remains to be seen. Our budgets aren't all final in terms of how much the DDS will get as it rolls out. We have been assured as we roll out with Levy Corporation, we'll have their full support in bringing it on and teaching our staff how to physically use it. Senator Voinovich. I would like to have something in writing from you about that, where you are, what you think you need, what your resources are, and what is the probability you are going to be able to achieve what it is you are supposed to. And also is the amount of the money that you are getting from the Federal Government adequate enough to hire staff. For example, how about your classification and your salary, are they competitive enough you can bring people? Mr. Williamson. I think they are relatively competitive. Senator Voinovich. Why do you have the turnover you have? Mr. Williamson. Our turnover is not quite as high as many DDS experience. For fiscal year 2002 we had 6.7 percent attrition. If you took our retirees, it's 3.48 percent. I don't think we are having quite the problem with that. Ninety-two percent of our workforce has 20 years experience or less. Where we are seeing the growing pains, we have approximately 54 percent of our workforce with less than 5 years experience. Making sure they have adequate training is one of our primary goals. Interestingly, though, as far as rolling out electronic folder the people just from college are familiar with the electronic environment and aren't struggling with that transition at all. Senator Voinovich. What about the ones that weren't doing it? Mr. Williamson. They are responding very well to our training. Like I said, we put in our electronic learning. We asked all staff to complete a certain amount of courses by May before the folder comes and they are responding quite well. A lot of people are saying, gee, I wish I tried this sooner. This isn't as bad as I thought it was. We had a lot of electronic forms up on our system and use the E-View system so we can look at the same application on the screen that the field office does. In a sense we implemented several parts of what we'll be doing and we feel relatively well prepared for both our future staff and existing staff to make that transition. Senator Voinovich. Did you teach Q-Step? Mr. Williamson. No, sir. Senator Voinovich. How long have you been with the agency? Mr. Williamson. Fourteen years. Senator Voinovich. When we started quality service through partnership you weren't part of that program? Mr. Williamson. No, sir. Senator Voinovich. Are you familiar with it at all? Mr. Williamson. I'm not. Senator Voinovich. We'll send you some stuff on it. Mr. Daub. The Commissioner also emphasized in-line quality review from the beginning to the end. That is a real need as you implement a new system. I take it you took a similar approach, in your work as governor. I think the reviewing officer and the closing of the record at the administrative law judge level will help. The number of days that it takes once a denial is turned into an appeal is somewhat misleading because if you don't like the judge you are assigned and you know there's another judge that's a little easier or a little more willing to overturn a decision, your attorney might just be busy that day and take a continuance or postpone the case in hopes that another judge will hear it. Forum shopping to a degree does occur. I think GAO discovered this. Also, if the record is kept open as it has been up to now, you can hold back information and wait to see how you are doing on overturning the disability determination from the beginning all the way to the final review. What that does is simply adds more days in the averaging as that case stays in the system longer. With the closing of the record and the other changes the Commissioner is thinking about we are going to get, I think, better due process to the claimants who rightfully should have a chance for an appeal and rightfully have their case reconsidered. It's going to work a lot more efficiently for the claimants. Senator Voinovich. We are going to have people representing claimants in the next panel. I would like to hear what their reaction is. Mr. Daub. It's going to take some time to get the system going. We have been without all the judges that we needed to do some of the work for a long, long time. And then, as you know, the Congress just passed the drug bill which is also going to change the situation--about 50 to 70 judges are going to leave SSA and go over to HHS to handle Medicare appeals. That will make the SSA system short again a number of judges. Again it is a resource issue and funding issue. Senator Voinovich. Seems to me that at this stage in the game, and I am going to have a hearing on April 8 next month on the new prescription drug program. I'm bringing HHS in to talk to about whether they have the capacity to implement the new Medicare modernization program and prescription drug program. I think it's important that we find out about this portion of it because one of the things we are trying to do is to make sure we have enough employees focusing on enforcement. As we are looking through and comparing all the employees in Homeland Security we may find large discrepancy in salaries in relation to enforcement positions at other agencies. We have people outside of DHS in the other agencies and we don't want to see employees flowing from one agency to the other because they are going to get a big bump in their salary. What you are saying to us today is you are concerned that some of your judges are going to be moved out of SSA over to Medicare to deal with their appeals process? Mr. Daub. That's a major situation. Somebody ought to relook at that whole big picture in terms of capacity. Senator Voinovich. That gets back to you, Mr. Robertson. How do you feel? You looked at this thing. Where are they in terms of capacity to do this? Mr. Robertson. I know what I would like to say. Part of me would like to sit here and say we have a big resource concern. When we did our work on the DDS human capital side of things, many of the DDS directors we talked with noted that there are some resource constraints. The problem I would have with saying there's a resource problem, however, is that, in that same review, we found that the planning wasn't there. So, it's hard to say there's definitely a resource problem when we haven't seen the plan either at the DDS level or Social Security level. That's where we come out on that question. Senator Voinovich. The point is, that the plan has not been finalized and it's difficult for you to determine if they have adequate staffing. Mr. Robertson. Yes. Senator Voinovich. I'm interested in that and as chairman of the Advisory Board you ought to be also. I would like to know when you think that is going to come to be. Mr. Daub. Your mandate says the conversion has to be by October 2005. So it's between now and then that the details of the plan have to be finalized. Senator Voinovich. In the meantime the Medicare thing is going in 2006. Mr. Daub. You are going to have a hearing on Part D. It's going to be interesting to see what you discover. Senator Voinovich. We are having it because you are concerned. Mr. Daub. Congress has provided funding for SSA to hire the people needed to implement the new Part D. Once that system, Part D, is implemented, there's going to be a real pool of talent that was hired to accomplish that initial start up for Medicare eligible individuals. It would be a shame to have them hired only temporarily and then to leave the system again short. We need to look at this as a human resources potential. Senator Voinovich. To see the opportunity that is there. Mr. Daub. It can be very helpful. Some of those folks may be available for State DDS work, too, which would be terrific. Senator Voinovich. Probably what we ought to do is call a meeting with OPM and Clay Johnson and get some folks together and talk about that to see if there is some way to expedite it within the framework of the current law or whether we need some changes in the law to have it. Mr. Daub. Along with electronic folders and with better planning for resource allocation, we also need judges to be better trained and continuously trained on medical evidence because medicine changes. Getting all of this in the system would eliminate the need to hire more people over time. It would take a couple or 3 years to accomplish all of this. Senator Voinovich. One thing I would like to mention to you, Mr. Williamson, is the issue of the quality of people that you have working. You have medical doctors on your staff. There has been some controversy about your head doctor because he lost his ability to treat patients. That's been pretty well vetted. But my concern, I don't know whether you recognize it or not, you are going to have less doctors because we are losing doctors right and left today giving up the practice of medicine because of malpractice lawsuits, premiums are going sky high. And, frankly, we are starting to see that in terms of medical school. It's having an impact on the number of people that want to go into medicine. So if you look at agencies that need M.D.'s to review the disability cases, we may have a human capital crisis in that area. Mr. Williamson. It's definitely a concern for us. We need to attract quality physicians and psychologists to do what is a very unprecedented growing rate of claims. So certainly that's a concern of ours and we may need to review what resources we may need. Senator Voinovich. Are you seeing anything like that now in terms of your situation? Mr. Williamson. We have been retaining fairly well. We have 92 doctors or M.D.'s and psychologists. And we, for the most part, have been retaining them without a lot of difficulty. But attracting new candidates has been an issue for us. Mr. Daub. Are they contracted mostly or employees? Mr. Williamson. All consultants. Mr. Daub. Some States are mixed--employed and contracted. Senator Voinovich. I read an article about it and about this particular individual, why don't you share that because there may be people in the news media that want to get your statement in regard to that. Mr. Williamson. I would say first, Dr. Cantor does hold a medical license. He has more than 20 years experience with our organization. He's very knowledgeable of the SSA program and is well respected and he meets the position requirements set forth by SSA. So at this point we are very comfortable with him continuing in that position. Senator Voinovich. The fact he lost his ability to treat patients because he was administering drugs to his family and friends doesn't give you any pause. Mr. Williamson. He did lose his ability to prescribe medication, that is true. Although that does not interfere with his ability to do his duties with our organization. Senator Voinovich. And you are sure that you monitored him so he's no longer---- Mr. Williamson. Yes, sir. Senator Voinovich. You feel very confident of that? Mr. Williamson. Yes, sir. Senator Voinovich. From your perspective he's a competent individual doing the job he's doing but he's not able to practice medicine is not a concern to you, or see patients? Mr. Williamson. I understand. Many of our physicians do not practice medicine. Many of them are retired or for one reason or another not practicing, including their medical insurance premiums. Senator Voinovich. You may be getting more. Mr. Williamson. We may have the opposite happen because of that, because they don't need that coverage with us. My answer would be I'm comfortable with him and we did monitor his work. Mr. Daub. There's another point you raised serving the rural populations of a State, and there the medical physician shortage that you are talking about is very serious. The Commissioner, in thinking through how to make good decisions at the in-take level is particularly interested in a regional kind of medical unit. It won't take away anybody's job currently working in the process, but to have regional specialists available to consult, particularly in a smaller community, can help expedite a person's application. GAO pointed this out in a number of studies, and it can be very important to a State like this for the determination folks to have the ability to pick up the phone or to video conference with physician subspecialists. Senator Voinovich. There is lot of that going on today in terms of video conferencing and diagnosis in rural areas because of lack of physicians that are in those areas. Mr. Robertson. Those regional units will help with the consistency of the decisions, too. Senator Voinovich. Has there been any study made as to why you have this large discrepancy in initial disability determinations. The range falls between 79 percent rejection and 35 percent? How do you reconcile that? Mr. Daub. It's very hard to explain. That's probably the most baffling part of the system. I think that it gets down to a training issue. In the system of administrative law judges there isn't any published precedent from one State to another as to how a particular diagnosis would be looked at on appeal. So from different parts of the country different judges and different doctors look at each human being differently as a separate unique case. I'm not sure we should get fully alarmed by the inconsistency but it's enough that I think part of the answer is in better training, and I said it a minute ago, more and regular medical training for ALJs. Senator Voinovich. How about DDS? Mr. Daub. I think if the judges had the same training the DDS had, you would see a lot more uniformity. Senator Voinovich. But the fact is the rejection rate on the State level is marked. Ohio has one the highest rejection rates, don't we? Mr. Williamson. Yes, sir. Senator Voinovich. Why are we rejecting more people than other States? Mr. Williamson. Mr. Chairman, we looked at several facts of whether we can draw comparison with unemployment rates, demographics or downturns in the economy and we have not been able to draw a direct nexus to those factors. We have to rely on quality statistics from Social Security Administration to make sure we are following rules and regulations and so far our quality has been very good. I do think, as Mr. Daub said, the Commissioner's approach to centralized quality review would be a great benefit to all the States in terms of providing consistency. Senator Voinovich. It's important somebody from Indiana and somebody from Ohio, Indiana says OK and Ohio rejected, why is one approved and why is one not approved, I think that in terms of fairness to individuals. Mr. Daub. One of the biggest difficulties is the review of mental illness disability. Physical disabilities, there's a lot more uniformity but it's less clear in the attempt to determine that someone is mentally unable to continue to perform the work they did do. And, of course, with medications today and other improvements there's so many more ways somebody can go back to work and be productive. But the definition of disability doesn't take that into account. And so everybody is working really hard to make sure you give the benefit of the doubt to that individual. I think that mental impairment in the most difficult one. Senator Voinovich. What percentage of the cases are for mental impairment. Mr. Daub. It's over half, well over half of disability claims involve mental issues. Senator Voinovich. I would like to see a breakdown of where the claims are coming from and I would like to have somebody dissect the thing a little bit and come back with some real thoughts. What are you doing with it, is anybody looking at this and if people who claim to have mental impairments--how are those being decided. The issue becomes quality of the individual that is reviewing their case and if one is reviewed and the situation can be remedied with the use of medication, you are saying that that doesn't count in terms of whether somebody should be disabled or not. Mr. Daub. It is a very difficult thing to look at aggressively with a degenerative circumstance in an individual and to know whether at some point that person will be able to work or not. There are so many people making judgments. To move that case along through the system you don't get time to check to see, if we prescribe medication, will that person be able in 6 months to go back to their job which they lost in the meantime. It's a difficult process. Senator Voinovich. It's one that would be worthwhile if you are talking about half the cases we are seeing such a dramatic change today in terms of mental illness. That is one I think we should really look after. Mr. Daub. Looking at other countries, Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, you are seeing, I want to put this in a tactful way as I can, the process of disability is becoming so easy, with all due respect, that it's become a much better way to take early retirement until you are 62 or 65. In our system it's not to say we have malingerers or people are cheating. I don't know that at all. The process makes so many judgments along the way that in the process of appealing, if you appeal long enough, you are going to win. And some of it is due to degeneration in the claimant's condition over the 2 or 3 years that the case stays in the system. Rather than pointing to any fault I think it's time in our modern society to take a look at how we define disability. Senator Voinovich. I want to thank you very much for coming today. It's been very instructive today. I appreciate you getting back to me. I'm going to recess the hearing for 5 minutes. [Recess.] Senator Voinovich. The hearing will come to order. We have our next panel and we are fortunate to have the Hon. Kevin Dugan, administrative law judge in Charlotte, North Carolina, collective vice president of the Association of Administrative Law Judges. I take it that all your judges belong to this, is that right? And James Hill, Attorney Advisor in the Cleveland office of hearing and appeals. He's also President of Chapter 224 of the National Treasury Employees Union 224 and we are here to hear from you. I'm interested in hearing professionals and members of unions, and Colleen Kelly is a great friend of mine and has been very helpful to us in all of the work that we have done in human capital, not necessarily agreeing with all of it but she's been very constructive. I want you to know as a member of her union she's an outstanding individual trying to find a way to make things work. Marcia Margolius who is an attorney with Brown & Margolius in Cleveland and I saw a couple people shaking their heads during some of the testimony and hopefully she will give us a perspective of the individual that represents the clients who go through this whole system. We'll begin the testimony with you, Mr. Dugan. TESTIMONY OF HON. D. KEVIN DUGAN,\1\ VICE PRESIDENT, ASSOCIATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES Mr. Dugan. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. This statement is presented in my capacity as Vice President of the Association of Administrative Law Judges (AALJ). It represents the professional interest of 900 administrative law judges in the Department of Health and Human Services where the new Medicare is going, by the way. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Dugan with an attachment appears in the Appendix on page 126. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the stated purposes of the AALJ is to promote and preserve the claimants right to full due process hearings. As such our association has spent a substantial amount of time and resources to create a system that will deliver fair and expeditious adjudications for the American public. The SSA administrative hearing system began in 1940 with 12 referees and it has grown to the largest adjudicative system in America. Along with the growth in size, there has been a growth in complexity. Unfortunately SSA has been unable to adequately address the difficulties that are inherent in the high volume but complex area of law. We are of the strong opinion that changes must be made if we want an efficient and fair adjudicative system. The Association of Administrative Law Judges believes the plan put forth by Commissioner Barnhart promises lasting and meaningful changes that will produce high quality decisions in an expeditious manner. We applaud her for her bold and courageous leadership. The plan makes many changes to the current system but promise to preserve the right of the claimant to a due process hearing. The changes that are proposed are predicated on the premise that the way to increase speed of adjudication is to first improve the quality. This is a stark contrast to many past initiatives. We agree that improving quality at the beginning of the adjudicative system confers benefits throughout the system as the cases move forward. If cases are fully developed and fairly evaluated from the beginning some cases will be paid more quickly and the more difficult cases will be properly prepared and presented for hearing, this will lead to more consistency at all levels of adjudication. As Commissioner Barnhart noted, however, the changes, technological changes she needs to do this will not be completed before October 2005. Meanwhile we must acknowledge that the pending backlog demands our best efforts with the tools we have now. The consensus is that the past initiative HPI failed to such a degree it caused an immediate decrease in cases decided in OHA offices here and nationwide. Fortunately, the best managers in local and regional offices were able to adapt and, to some degree, lessen the negative impact of HPI. Those offices are often characterized by a cooperative atmosphere which utilizes the skills and resources of the judges and staff. Other offices, however, were not able to soften that negative impact and they failed to a greater degree. We believe such offices should look to the practices used by the more successful managers. The AALJ has long been concerned about the growing backlog in Cleveland, as well as throughout the region. We have made informal suggestions and more recently put together a more comprehensive plan for the consideration of SSA managers. A copy of that letter is attached to my testimony.\1\ Our suggestions include reorganizing staff to providing additional management training and increasing resources. Until OHA returns to a modified unit staffing system, however, we will not be able to fully and effectively utilize your current resources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The letter referred to appears in the Appendix on page 149. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- We have also suggested changes in case practices that could quickly increase case dispositions without additional resources. Some of the suggestions include using prehearing orders that fully involve the claimant bar in the process. This would shift some of the case preparation from the overworked staff. On a national level we have urged the adoption of rules of practice and procedure and the ABA Ethical Code of Conduct for administrative law judges. The plan presented by Commissioner Barnhart promises to transform the disability system into an efficient and fair system and we ask that you and the rest of your Subcommittee to fully support her efforts, her budgets requirements. The association will continue to work on improving the hearing process for the benefit of the American people. Thank you again, Senator, and I am happy to answer any questions. Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. I appreciate you coming here today. Mr. Hill. TESTIMONY OF JAMES A. HILL,\1\ PRESIDENT, CHAPTER 224, NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Mr. Hill. Good morning. My name is James Hill. I'm the Attorney Advisor at the Cleveland hearing office for over 21 years. I'm also the President of Chapter 224 of the National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) that represents attorney advisors and other staff members in the approximately 110 OHA hearing and regional offices across the United States. I thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Hill appears in the Appendix on page 133. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The disability backlog problem at OHA is neither recent nor unique to the Cleveland Hearing Office. From the mid-1990s the backlog grew to approximately 550,000 cases nationally and WITH over 9,000 cases in Cleveland. Several highly focused initiatives, most notably the senior attorney program, produced over 220,000 fully favorable on the record decisions with an average processing time of just over 100 days. By October 1999 it reduced the number of cases pending to 311,000 nationally and slightly over 4,000 cases in Cleveland. I point out currently there are 625,000 cases pending nationally and over 8,500 in Cleveland. Since that time a number of factors including the termination of the senior attorney program, increased receipts, inadequate staffing and implementation of the disastrous Hearing Process Improvement plan have resulted in the record number of cases currently pending. The sheer mass of cases pending has raised the processing time to nearly 400 days nationally and over 550 days in Cleveland. This is simply unacceptable. There is no question that the current disability system is fundamentally flawed and wide ranging systemic changes are necessary. Commissioner Barnhart and Deputy Commissioner Martin Gerry conducted a truly objective review of the entire disability system accurately identifying its strengths and weaknesses. I believe that for the first time a senior SSA official truly understands the strengths and efficiencies of the current system. This insight combined with the Commissioner's commitment to create a process that serves the needs of the public rather than the dictates of the bureaucracy has lead her to propose a plan for implementing fundamental process changes that will provide a level of service of which we can all be proud. The plan is comprehensive and involves extensive changes such as replacement of paper folders with electronic folders, elimination of the reconsideration determination, elimination of the appeals counsel, a completely revamped quality assurance system and creation of a reviewing official process to provide an intermediary between the State agency and administrative law judges. I am convinced this plan, if implemented, will result in efficient, effective and most importantly a fair adjudicatory reprocess. As good as this plan is, it does not provide immediate reprieve for the Cleveland office. SSA has implemented some temporary measures that are limited in scope and have little effect nationally or in the Cleveland office. The Cleveland office faces an emergency and fortunately actions have been taken to significantly improve the level of public service. Three additional ALJs will shortly be assigned to the Cleveland hearing office. Additionally during the past several months over 4,000 Cleveland cases have been transferred to ALJs at other hearing offices for hearings held in Cleveland in person or via video teleconferencing. More could be done. But it is essential that SSA be provided with the funding necessary to promote current and long-term initiatives to improve the level of service. However, not every improvement is extensive. Revising the senior attorney program would during the next year result in over 60,000 fully favorable on the record decisions without a significant drain on SSA resources. The Social Security Administration and its employees recognize that significant improvement in the disability must be made if the public is to receive the level of service it has every right to expect. I know you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Barnhart are committed to the SSA disability system on a short-term and long-term basis, as well as providing resources necessary to the Cleveland hearing office to provide the wealth of services that the people of this community expect. Thank you. Senator Voinovich. Ms. Margolius. TESTIMONY OF MARCIA MARGOLIUS, ESQ.,\1\ BROWN AND MARGOLIUS, L.P.A. Ms. Margolius. First, I would like to thank you, Senator Voinovich, for initiating this field hearing to address delays in the Social Security claims. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Margolius appears in the Appendix on page 144. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Under the current system people with severe disabilities are forced to wait years for an ALJ decision. These delays are harmful to the individual, undermine public confidence in the program and damage the integrity of the whole system. As a disability advocate I support any efforts and initiatives to make the process more efficient. However, any changes must ensure fairness and protect the rights of people with disabilities. The Commissioner's plan includes several changes at the front end of the program that can have an immediate impact on new applicants and improve backlogs and delays later. Hopefully this will move forward at all possible speed and I hope it is up and operational by June 2005. However, like our Federal court system there needs to be a read-only online access to the program for the attorneys so that all parties involved can have the information and be involved in the processing of the claims. The current proposal does not allow such read-only online access that has been provided, for example, in the Federal courts. The position of the reviewing officer is very promising as it provides that necessary point person to help expedite critical cases. However, an appeal from the reviewing official to the ALJ which is currently proposed is a duplication in the reconsideration level. Beyond duplicating a step, the way the Commissioner has proposed to rid the system of it will be confusing to the public. The way the program is proposed currently there will be an appeal from the initial level to the reviewing official and then again to the administrative law judge. However there should be one appeal from the initial level to both the reviewing official and ALJ together. As currently proposed the reviewing official and administrative law judge will be in the same office of hearings and appeals. This is going to be very misleading to the public and people will mistakenly give up appeal rights. Senator Voinovich. Will you repeat that? I'm not sure I understand. Ms. Margolius. The way the program is now, the reviewing official and administrative law judges will be housed in the same office of hearings and appeals. The Commissioner is proposing if a claimant is denied initially, they will be appealed to a reviewing official and if a favorable decision isn't issued you appeal from the reviewing official to the---- Senator Voinovich. Eliminate the reconsideration at the local and go right to a reviewing official. Would that reviewing official be working in the State operation or for the Social Security Administration? Ms. Margolius. For the Social Security Administration. Senator Voinovich. That should help to alleviate some of the burden on the State offices in terms of the reconsideration. Ms. Margolius. At the State office. But to be true to the position of reviewing official one appeal from the initial level should get the individual to the SSA level rather than making them go through two appeals. It's duplicating. Senator Voinovich. The State does it, State denies, goes to the reviewing official and from reviewing goes to a judge. Ms. Margolius. But you have to appeal from the reviewing official to the judge. You are shifting focus from the State to Federal but still making the claimant undergo as many hurdles. Senator Voinovich. What would you do, eliminate the reviewing official? Ms. Margolius. Appeal of the initial decision goes to the Federal branch of the Social Security Administration, let the reviewing official approve it or make a recommendation to the judge and then have it go right to the judge without an additional appellate procedure. Senator Voinovich. I see. In order so that you don't have the paperwork that is involved, the reviewing official gets the file, looks it over, they approve it and it's done. Ms. Margolius. Correct. Senator Voinovich. You don't think it should be I will take the file and move it, any appeal is to the judge. Ms. Margolius. Correct. Continuation of the appeal also protects the claimants. The current review process satisfies the claimants' need to have oversight of the administrative law judges decision. A major basis for remand by the appeal counsel is not submission of new evidence but legal error committed by the ALJ. The Commissioner should maintain this process for rectifying errors administratively rather than forcing a court review. To date, though, Senator, the fundamental problem has been staffing at the Office of Hearing and Appeals. However, judges are only part of the solution. Support staff is based on the number of judges not the number of cases. So as long as we have the current backlog that exists at the Office of Hearing and Appeals, the delays are endemic and will continue without that much needed support staff. Senator Voinovich. What you are saying is even though you think we are going to bring two or three---- Ms. Margolius. Three more judges by June. Senator Voinovich. And of course they are farming out a lot of these cases to other offices, I would be interested to hear from you how you feel about that, maybe not in your testimony but as a question, but it's the old staff thing. Ms. Margolius. Correct. Senator Voinovich. The thing that would be interesting to know why it is that Ohio has all these backlogs versus other offices, why is it we are farming cases out to someplace else and is it reflective. I thought this over, not in this area but even with immigration, same problem, it seems like we get shortchanged. So it would be interesting based on case load to see how the staffing levels fit with the judges. And, Mr. Hill, you might comment on that. Put that one down as a question. Ms. Margolius. Finally, to respond to Mr. Daub's comment, I believe, forum shopping is not part of the system. If a case must be delayed, the claimant is unhappy. The case gets rescheduled with the same judge who also is not happy with any of the delays. So delays are avoided at all costs. You cannot postpone a case and have it reassigned to another judge. It goes back to the same judge. That's the same procedure with appeal counsel remands also. If you do appeal, you get a remand, it's returned to the same administrative law judge to deal with the issues that were raised on remand. That's the end of my comments. Senator Voinovich. Thank you very much. That's a good suggestion. Mr. Hill, what is your comment in terms of the staffing level here? Mr. Hill. Staffing, there are two distinct problems. You don't have the funding for enough staffing. And I think the second is---- Senator Voinovich. Have you looked at your staff here versus other parts of the country to ascertain whether or not you are being shortchanged. Mr. Hill. We are being shortchanged I suppose if you look at it that way in terms of we have fewer judges than we need. And it has been pointed out staffing is based on the number of judges. So if you are short of judges, you are going be short of staff. If you don't have enough staff, you are not going to get more judges. Senator Voinovich. I think to start off with you need judges. But the question I have is for the judges that you have in terms of staffing compared to other places, are the staffing levels to support the judges same as in other jurisdictions. Mr. Hill. It's slightly higher. When we get the three new judges it will be about the national average. Senator Voinovich. You have more staff then you need right now. Mr. Hill. Temporarily, only temporarily because we have lost three judges in the last year and we are acquiring three judges. Senator Voinovich. You lost three, you got the staff that supported those judges, now you are going to get the three judges. Mr. Hill. I don't believe we have had any hiring in quite some time as far as staff. I think the second problem we need to look at with staff is one of the problems HPI introduced is the group system where you group employees with a group administrative law judges. In my opinion that has been a disaster. I do support Judge Dugan when he says we need to go back to a modified unit system where we have specific people working toward specific judges rather than a generalized system. Senator Voinovich. Like a pool. Mr. Hill. It's hasn't worked as well as some of the people in Baltimore thought it would. It's not very efficient. Senator Voinovich. Commission Barnhart is going to change that, right? Mr. Hill. I hope so. We haven't changed it as of yet. Senator Voinovich. That's an aftermath of the---- Mr. Hill. HPI. Senator Voinovich [continuing]. HPI and it hasn't been changed and you are hopeful for it to be changed. The question to the Commissioner is it one of the things she's going to change. Mr. Dugan. Mr. Dugan. On that issue it's kind of funny, it has been changed in some offices to some degree. It has been finessed a little better in others but in Cleveland it hasn't for some reason. They brought more accountability in other offices where you can match people up so people know what cases belong to who and who you go to but when you have this group thing you have a whole bunch of people responsible for a whole bunch of stuff. No one is responsible for anything and it makes it--that's why when an attorney sends in evidence, it doesn't get into files, that's why sometimes these hearings get delayed. By the date of the hearing the judge gets a stack like that. It's not the attorney's fault. The attorney is probably sending it a month ago or 6 months ago. Senator Voinovich. The question is you are saying where they have changed it---- Mr. Dugan. I can get you some offices where it's been changed for the better. Senator Voinovich. It seems to me that your organization should be looking at best practices and try to share that information with your colleages. Who is the boss in Cleveland in terms of the office procedures, are you, Mr. Hill? Mr. Dugan. The chief judge is Alan Ramsay. Senator Voinovich. So your organization could compile best practices and send it to Chief Judge Alan Ramsay. If some offices have changed the process from HPI, why don't the rest of the offices? Mr. Dugan. We have sent suggestions, I said in my testimony, sent them up to the associate commissioner. I'm not in a position to suggest to Judge Ramsay how he is going to run his office. We sent them to the head of the organization. It's up to them to decide. That would be outside of my realm. Senator Voinovich. I would think that Ms. Barnhart would be interested if this is working some places. We ought to see if we can't get it done. So you could do that in Cleveland, right? Mr. Hill. Yes, I suppose. Again, it's bureaucracy whatever the instructions are above you. Currently it's a group system. Because all of the offices are located all over the country there are probably more variances than a lot of organizations but technically speaking according to the rules, the group system is still in place. Senator Voinovich. Why don't you let me know when you are going to get it changed. I want you to personally look into this, Mr. Hill, and get a letter to Mr. Ramsay. I want to get a letter to Mr. Ramsay, I want to know what other places are doing and get that to Ms. Barnhart so she can give her blessing that he get going on this thing. Ms. Margolius, do you think that would help a lot? Ms. Margolius. It would help because it would allow assignment to individual judges quicker. Senator Voinovich. How long have you practiced? Ms. Margolius. Twenty years. Senator Voinovich. So you've had a chance to compare the old system versus the new system? Ms. Margolius. Yes. Senator Voinovich. What is your comment about the new system? Ms. Margolius. Cleveland hasn't seen the new system yet. Senator Voinovich. Before they came up with HPI, they had staff that would be working directly with a judge, working the cases up, they would be responsible for it and then apparently they changed the process with HPI. Did you see it at that stage? Ms. Margolius. I did. And it was much better before. It gets to the issue of accountability, a judge could be accountable for cases earlier on, his staff was accountable, it gave you individuals to talk to. If you have a case that is sitting in the Office of Hearings and Appeals for years not assigned to a judge, it's sort of hit or miss if you can find someone for a dire need case, critical case to pick up that file and deal with it. It's an issue of accountability. Senator Voinovich. You have heard testimony of Ms. Barnhart and others about the fact that they are farming these cases out to other places. Have you had any experiences with cases in that new system? Ms. Margolius. Yes, both farmed out and with video conferencing. It's a short-term help, I mean, again, like looking at the crisis that we are trying to deal with. Senator Voinovich. Is it working? Ms. Margolius. It is working. Senator Voinovich. And your clients don't feel like they are getting shortchanged because of it? Ms. Margolius. No, sir, not at all. Senator Voinovich. The idea would be getting more judges here, replace the three that you didn't have. Are you sure if you are replacing three you didn't have, seems to me you need more than three. You have this backlog building up. How many judges do you need? Mr. Hill. I think Cleveland probably needs about 14 judges to be fully staffed. Senator Voinovich. How many do we have? Mr. Hill. We have eight right now. Senator Voinovich. We go from 8 to 11 and you think we need an additional three judges? Mr. Hill. Yes. Senator Voinovich. We should ask about these 50 coming in. I will send a letter to the Commissioner on this. The 50 new individuals coming on, maybe you can respond to this, are just to replace those who have retired? Mr. Dugan. Yes. Commissioner Barnhart testified in September that she was short 200 judges nationwide. So this 50 is kind of you lose about 50 a year so it really just keeps us treading water as far as that is a concerned. And connected to that is the Medicare that is coming on line. And they are going to probably take 70 immediately but eventually going to need close to 200 judges themselves. Senator Voinovich. And they are going to go over and do what again? Mr. Dugan. Medicare Part B and hearing all the appeals from denials or overpayments under the Medicare system. And they are going to go into HHS, Congress is moving HHS. Senator Voinovich. You are saying these are appeals with the current Medicare system? Mr. Dugan. Yes. Senator Voinovich. This has nothing to do with the new system? Mr. Dugan. With the current system. All the Medicare cases, SSA is currently handling. They handle a contract with CMS. That is now moving on October 2005 into HHS and all those judges will have to move plus they are going to pick up some more because of the new system. The point I am trying to make is that over the next 4 years it looks like the Federal Government is going to be hiring close to 400 to 500 administrative law judges. The problem is that Office of Personnel Management which has been responsible for that has abolished its office of administrative law judges and it is not focused like it used to be on the administrative law judge system. And that is a problem. Senator Voinovich. Where has that gone? Mr. Dugan. They farmed it out as we can tell to different functions within the agency. Senator Voinovich. Who did they farm it out to. Mr. Dugan. In their own system. It was in one office and farmed out the function to a different division within OPM. There is no one person in charge of the overall function. Senator Voinovich. When did that happen? Mr. Dugan. That abolishment was probably in the last 2 to 3 years. Meanwhile we had that stay as well and they were not creating, part of the Azdell case that was whether they were going to create a new system and OPM never moved forward with that. Now that the stay is lifted, we have the old register and from what I was told recently, OPM is going to close that register and create a whole new one with their new system but they haven't started that yet. That could be awhile down the road. It takes a year to get another register. Senator Voinovich. Could you put that down in a letter to me and I will send it over to Kay Coles James and get a reaction from her, she is the head of OPM. Mr. Dugan. I would be glad to. Senator Voinovich. You see how many you need, and it's also phasing in people over a period of time. Somebody has to look at what kind of capacity you are going to need to meet some of these responsibilities that are coming up. Ms Margolius, do you have some other comments you would like to make? You had a chance to sit in and listen to the other witnesses and I think you may have some colleagues attending the hearing that also represent clients. Could you comment about some of the things that you heard and what do you think of them? Ms. Margolius. Yes, sir. First the greatest concern which I touched on very briefly was the issue of forum shopping. And I just want to make it clear that is not a practice. Certainly anyone representing disabled people wouldn't take such a step that would harm them and it would be an action very much frowned upon by judges we appear in front of repeatedly. It's just not an issue. Second, on the issue of closing the record, the hearing record is closed after the judge's decision. There are good cause standards to get new evidence in at later appeals but this has been dealt with by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which covers new material evidence and good cause standards. I don't think closing the record after the judge's hearing is really an important issue either since this is closely monitored and taken care of. Concerning Commissioner Barnhart, I think the bar associations are very impressed with her and with her initiatives and what she wants to do. Again, I see most of her initiatives at this point being at the front end and that's not dealing with the crisis that your constituents and our clients are dealing with now and that the actions being taken as far as video teleconferences and farming out the cases to other regions and more judges hopefully will deal with the backlogs and what we see as a greater crisis currently. Senator Voinovich. You were saying something about the read only files for attorneys. Tell me about that. Ms. Margolius. Yes. With the AeDib program what they are proposing that the electronic folder is going to be available only to Social Security personnel. When we get up to a level where we will be appearing in front of a judge, they'll burn a disk for us so we can see the records. I see that as a great problem. For one thing, no judge wants me to turn in duplicate evidence but if I can't see the electronic file I'm going to be submitting evidence sort of in the dark. I don't know what they have, I am duplicating information, even though I'm submitting the most pertinent information. The Federal courts have a read-only file, everything is electronically filed with the Federal court. We can get in and read the decisions and court order. If this can be done with the court system, it seems like Social Security could duplicate that system, where we can go on line, read the records, read what is transpiring in the case but not have any right to alter any of the documents at all. Senator Voinovich. So the point is that the electronic file would be worked up on the State level with all the information. If we eliminate the reconsideration in going to a hearing officer then that information the hearing officer puts in would be in the record and you would be able to access it. Judge Dugan, can you tell us what do you think about the suggestion she's making? Mr. Dugan. I'm really not up to date on what she's saying. But it's clear the representative has to have access to what it is. How they are going get it, I suspect they'll work it out. We would support them having access one way or the other. Some kind of read only file it's a little more complicated because there's a security problem when we are accessing these medical problems and getting into the database. I think that's what they are struggling on how to solve security problems and what the system needs and they are well aware of that need but I think they haven't solved it yet. Senator Voinovich. Ms. Margolius, why don't you get me a letter on that. I will send it over to the Commissioner and ask her to respond to me where they are with that and if it's allowed in the Federal courts why can't we be doing it with your files if you think that would help expedite things. What some of the difference you are asking for, I suspect a lot of the case material in Federal cases is similar to the information contained in disability files. I don't know why it could be a problem. Mr. Hill. Probably one of the underlying problems is privacy. The medical records associated obviously with Social Security are numerous. What needs to be worked out is a secure way to transmit that information to only the people who are entitled to it. District court information is public information. I can go on and look at any case. I think we are really trying to shy away from that kind of situation. It's a technical matter IT people are going to have to work out. There is no question the representatives and claimants themselves have a need and right to see the material that Social Security Administration has, no question. I think it's a technical matter to get it straightened out. A little push would help. Senator Voinovich. I would like your consensus, particularly Mr. Dugan and Mr. Hill, about this marked difference between the rejection of cases around the country as little as 35 percent, as high as almost 70 percent. Shouldn't we try to get more uniformity? We talked about having the State DDS employees better trained. You think that having a common school that they go to, is that it, and Ms. Barnhart talked about this forum, is there a uniform forum you use, Mr. Williamson, on the State level, is your forum taking information exactly the same as other States? Mr. Williamson. Yes. Senator Voinovich. So it's uniform. That seems to be something that really needs to be looked at. Mr. Dugan. I agree. But before I get into that, I have to say that I am familiar with DDS throughout the Nation. And these people are very knowledgeable, hard working people. They are under a crush. There's a bias at the DDS level to deny a claim. If you pay a claim, you have to work a little harder to pay it and that---- Senator Voinovich. You what? Mr. Dugan. You have to justify it a little more. Just like OHA level, if you are going to deny, you justify more than if you pay a claim. It builds in a bias at different levels. Why is there an inconsistency? It's very difficult to answer. But I think what the Commissioner is doing with that reviewing official is going to be a key to getting that consistency that we want nationwide because that reviewing official is going to be able to send cases back, as I understand it, with instructions so that you'll get some feedback. Currently there is no feedback in the system. Senator Voinovich. So if she gets her way and you have the reviewing officer that would be kind of the quality control person that would look at the case and maybe send it back to the agency and say I have observed certain cases coming here by certain people that appear not to have enough information or there seems to be some lack of effort there to do the job, is that what you are saying? Mr. Dugan. I think it would be along that way. She calls it in-line quality control. Senator Voinovich. Your DDS people in Ohio, do they go to the same training nationally? Mr. Williamson. We have our own training department. Senator Voinovich. In terms of the consistency of the training in various places, it may vary substantially. Mr. Williamson. Ours is based on SSA rules and regulations but we do. Senator Voinovich. That's another area somebody ought to look at with the training. Do you have continuous upgrading of training, your judges do. Don't you have training programs for judges? Mr. Dugan. When I came to SSA I was shocked by the lack of training that they provided. The training provided to judges primarily is provided by the judges. We pay our own way. Only recently with the prodding of Congress did we get time off and get some small stipend but not a per diem or anything like that. It's put on by our association. Commissioner Barnhart and Martin Gerry have worked hard to try to upgrade that but we don't get the type of training at the level we should. Senator Voinovich. So that's another issue, training. That doesn't surprise me. When I came in I was trying to bring quality management to the Federal Government and I realized they had a human capital crisis. I sent out letters to 12 agencies and asked how much money they spend on training and 11 came back and said they didn't know. One letter came back and said they did know but wouldn't tell me. It's a major problem I think right across the board even with, I'm sure, these people that work these cases up that they need better training. Are you able to attract the right people in these cases, Mr. Hill? Do you have any problems hiring people? Is the salary level adequate? Mr. Hill. OHA level it's adequate. I don't think there's a significant problem. I think there might be a problem retaining people. Again, a lot of that is--a lot of things are involved when you have a national program. There are cultural differences and regional differences. I think you tend to find OHA employees in the Rust Belt stay a lot longer than they do in California where we have a steady turnover of attorneys. It's very unusual in the Rust Belt. A lot has to do with the economic well-being of the area. I think to some extent regional differences show their faces in a number of areas, not the least of which may be even payment rate. Senator Voinovich. In what way? Mr. Hill. Pay rate of DDS. I don't have the statistics. I'm not management. Senator Voinovich. Who determines the wage level of DDS people? Mr. Hill. States. Senator Voinovich. You could have marked differences between the pay somebody is getting in Mississippi versus Ohio or Indiana and so on? Mr. Hill. Yes, sir. Senator Voinovich. I would like to get that, too. Find out what the pay level of these people are across the country and get an idea what it is. Mr. Dugan. May I respond? First of all, we want to thank you for introducing our pay bill in the Senate. Part of the problem with regard to pay is that in 1990 the entry level for administrative law judges was about 15 step 6 or so. Because of a pay cap that has dropped to a level of 14 step 7. So someone like Ms. Margolius if they were to take a job as an administrative law judge not only would she have to probably take a pay cut, she would be closing down her practice and so are we getting the best people on that list is the problem. So that pay bill is important to us and we have been working on trying to put together some kind of pension so it recognizes people coming in from private industry for a shorter period of time for a career that we have put forward with your staff. Senator Voinovich. One of the things we did in this legislation is it's simple but gets to the issue of whether someone is going to be willing to come to the Federal Government. But if you come in to work for the Federal Government the first year you get 2 weeks of vacation and 3 years you get 3 weeks and then at 15 years of service you get 4 weeks. So we changed that. We provided this flexibility for Sean O'Keefe, at NASA. It's a simple thing, but it's a big deal to someone out there working. Perhaps it will help recruit successful business professionals to Federal service. By the way you are here 15 years, you are going to get time off, I'm not sure how much time you get off anyhow in private practice. I didn't get that much. But those are some of the practical things that we are dealing with but I really would, Mr. Hill, get your point of view or from the judge that runs the Cleveland office. Mr. Hill. Judge Ramsay. Senator Voinovich. I would be interested to see just how our staffing levels compare with other places. That just seems like we are shortchanged. What we should be striving for is getting the three judges, replace those we have and try to get three more. Do you think that would help a lot? Ms. Margolius. Greatly, Senator. But one point on the staffing levels, though, that the staff is tied to the number of judges but if you have judges already over worked if you are going to have too many cases for any one judge you really need to base the staff on the number of cases rather than the number of judges. Senator Voinovich. The thing to look at--are these places being allocated because right now they are going to be sitting in Washington or Baltimore looking at the deal? Where are we going to put these judges and we should be putting in a real effort to say, look, we need these judges and part of the problem that we have is we just haven't had them. Ms. Margolius. When I started 20 years ago, Cleveland had the highest number of judges they ever had. They were up to 18. And Mr. Hill says that he thinks they need 14 to work efficiently but we had 18 with fewer cases and the waiting period was minimal at that point in time. Senator Voinovich. Mr. Dugan, do you have any kind of standard that you use? I'm getting into the nitty-gritty here but that kind of stuff really makes a difference in terms of case loads of various judges and in terms of productivity or anything like that if you got X number of cases that's a pretty good year or pretty good docket and when you get to this point maybe it's a little bit more than it ought to be in standards. Mr. Dugan. If you are looking for something like that, look at preHPI because HPI skewed everything. You can see judges doing somewhere between 25 or 50 cases. Senator Voinovich. How many? Mr. Dugan. Twenty-five to 50 if they have the staff. If they have the staff that's the key. If the staff was assigned to them and can get the cases worked up. What happened after HPI was a terrible thing. There were judges sitting nationwide in their offices waiting for cases to come to hearing but they were not being prepared. I could ask for 45 cases to be scheduled, that's 45 hearings, they say we can only give you 20. And as that was happening, that happened for a couple years, and the backlog just continued. If I may, that letter you wrote, someone wrote me a letter once, and this was before HPI, I paid this claim after a hearing and paid it pretty quickly, a week or two. It wasn't a hard case. And about 3 weeks after that I got a letter from his wife, she told me he had died. And she said, you don't know how important it was to him that he was validated before he died. If that same thing were to happen today, that poor man would be dead before he would even get to the hearing much less before I could get a decision out. That's how bad it is. That's how angry we got about what was happening in the system. Senator Voinovich. And you think that the Commissioner really has listened and has a good idea what to do now? The issue is, is she going to have the resources to get the job done. Mr. Dugan. I absolutely do. I have never met anyone in government who is so knowledgeable and open and ready to make the changes that need to be made. This is a big plan she's got. It takes a lot of courage to do it. She has a good guy, Martin Gerry, working with her. A hundred percent, the right person. Now she just needs the tools. Mr. Hill. I concur with that 100 percent. Senator Voinovich. That's good news. What we want to do is to take care of Cleveland and get those cases down and get this office geared up to what it ought to be and deal with the national problems to get moving. Any other comments anybody would like to make? I thank you for coming here. This has been a really great hearing. I'm so glad you came and we decided to do this. Hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, the Subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X ---------- [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4200.123