From a press release:
A new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine examines to what extent and in which ways health care utilization—such as in-patient hospitalizations, emergency department use, and hospital readmission—reflects disease severity, disability, and ability to perform gainful activity. The committee that conducted the study was unable to find an association between health care utilization and disease severity as it relates to the Social Security Administration's (SSA) determination of severe impairment—an impairment or combination of impairments severe enough to prevent a person from performing any gainful activity regardless of age, education, or work experience.
The Social Security Administration paid these beltway bandits to tell us that there's no direct relationship between the number of hospital visits and the degree of disability! Anybody involved with disability determination could have told you that for free. I have clients with 300 page files who are obvious allowances. I have other clients with 2,000+ page files who have weak cases. Disability determination isn't about counting the number of pages of medical records any more than counting the number of hospital visits. The idea that there would be such a simplistic relationship is absurd on its face.
There's a real beltway bandit touch to this report. Even though the Social Security Administration paid for this worthless study, the National Academies wants $50 for a copy of the report.
By the way, if you did pony up the $50, I will bet you that there will be one unambiguous recommendation in the report -- more research. As I've said before, when someone goes to work for a beltway bandit, they must be told on their very first day of work, whenever you write a report, no matter what else it says, it must always give a firm recommendation for more research.
17 comments:
Oh, if they are not stating what you agree you must insult them and label them to belittle the message. I see that the it is ok to act like the current potus.
10:05 AM. SERIOUSLY? C'mon man! Government wastes billions on pointless studies: Men and Women ARE Different; Eating Fast Food is Bad; Eating Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Is Good; Children With A Mom and a Dad Do Better In Life; Math Is Tough. Oh, wait. That last one was Barbie. Here's a few observations I have made that you don't need a study to confirm:
Mueller charging people with "lying" to the FBI will lead more people to plead the 5th to the FBI.
"Sanctuary" Cities will get more illegal aliens.
The NRA will try to primary Republicans who vote for gun control.
The Chinese will try to copy and make cheaper the next great invention.
The vast majority of people who claim to be disabled, ARE disabled.
Rand Paul and Tom Cotton will talk about "fraud" and "lazy people who claim to be disabled."
Charles Barkley will say something ridiculous.
Politicians will support the policies of those who donate to them.
An Actor's favorite episode of the TV series they are in is the one where they have the most lines.
Being "politically active" reduces an athlete's, artist's, musician's popularity, UNLESS that popularity results FROM said political activism.
The report is free to download
Anyone can download the report for free - the $50 is for a printed copy. I don't think the National Academies are beltway bandits. They are non-profits established by congress to provide expert advice to the government. SSA came to them and asked them to do the study, which they did - so if you think it's pointless, blame the SSA. I don't see any recommendation for further research in the summary. Criticizing the National Academies for doing this study is like criticizing the GAO for conducting a study they are asked to do by a congressperson - that's their job (the Academies are different because they are not part of the government, but the purpose is for experts outside the gov't to provide advice to the gov't). I certainly don't agree with everything they do, but I think you're being unfair.
@10:05
The study said they were unable to find a correlation with treatment and severity of impairment. Charles agrees with that point and did not insult or belittle based on a disagreement with the study. Charles said the study was worthless because it was inconclusive. Arguably, the study is not worthless as it supports the argument that treatment is not correlated with severity of impairment, a point Charles agrees with. If you meant to suggest Charles' criticizing SSA investment in the study is insulting or belittling, I'm not sure how it is. it is neither insulting nor belittling to argue your government should spend money more wisely. As you do not state what you found insulting or belittling, I am not able to address the point further, but I do not find Charles' post insulting or belittling.
@1:05 labeling them as "Beltlin Bandits" is belittling and insulting and biased the rest of his beliefs.
@3:09
Interesting. I suppose the term is insulting and belittling. Still not sure what your point is. You said Charles insulted and belittled them because he disagreed with what they were saying. Charles agreed with what they were saying, only insulting and belittling the research group because he found the study a waste of money.
Anyone who has worked near DC knows the term "Beltway Bandit" isn't actually a pejorative anymore. It's a generic name for any type of organization that makes their money by performing services for the feds. Maybe for someone not "inside the Beltway" it comes across as a slur but given how often folks who work for such organizations use the term to describe themselves, it isn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_bandit
Beltway bandit is a term for private companies located in or near Washington, D.C., whose major business is to provide consulting services to the US government. The phrase was originally a mild insult, implying that the companies preyed like bandits on the largesse of the federal government, but it has lost much of its pejorative nature and is now often used as a neutral, descriptive term.[1][2]
The term refers to the Capital Beltway, which is a ring road that surrounds Washington. Many federal government contractors have offices and headquarters near the Beltway because of its proximity to federal agencies and legislators. Civilian contractors tend to locate along the Maryland portion of the Beltway, while defense contractors tend to locate along the Virginia section, which is closer to the Pentagon.[2]
This is not a matter of agreeing or disagreeing with the results of the study; this is Charles expressing a position that the study itself was a waste of money because he and "Anybody involved with disability determination" already intuitively knew what the outcome would be. However, I take exception to this contention. I believe it is dangerous to presume that my (or anyone's) intuitive understanding of a situation must be the truth. This is the purpose of scientific inquiry -- to provide support for or to refute any premise, including those that are commonly held. If you were representing a claimant with a sparse medical record, would you rather try to persuade the ALJ that this was not inconsistent with disability because "we all know that" or because science -- science sponsored by SSA -- demonstrates it?
Isn't there a point at which healthcare utilization would make a person absent too often from work to maintain a full-time competitive job? If you have a medical impairment that makes you miss a couple days a month, whether that is being in a hospital, emergency room, or for medically necessary outpatient treatment/therapy, no competitive employer would keep you on without disability accommodations. We hear about that a lot from vocational experts based on their experience, but a more scientific study on that would actually be useful.
6:47 raises a valid point, to which I would add that several Listings are premised, at least in part, upon the number of hospitalizations or emergency department visits over a period of time.
OK, if Beltline Bandit isn't bad we can use "Ambulance Chaser" for reps and Fraudsters for Claimants.
Works for me.
9:47 AM. Sure, as long as you pay us! You can call us (claimants) leeches, lazy, worthless bums... JUST pay us. We KNOW the truth! I won't even call you a skinflint, tightwad, grandma-starving low life or a worthless, lazy bureaucrat! That would be a double redundancy!
All kidding aside, the reps wouldn't be necessary if SSA really cared about the actual people that were applying for disability. Pontius Pilate thought he was judging Jesus... Pilate didn't understand that he was the one on trial! Pilate condemned a man he knew was innocent to death. Do ALJs understand that they are the ones on trial at a disability hearing?
Tim, just because someone holds an opposing view to you doesn't mean they are with the agency. SSA is not charged with caring for the actual people that are applying for disability. That is nowhere in the charter for the agency. In fact, the rules are set up so that people are not supposed to include things like "caring" as a determining factor. Instead, they rely on the medical records and evidence supplied by the person claiming disability. This is done to take some of the objectivity out of the process and make it more factual and evidence based.
I am sorry you were denied, but you have had your time before an ALJ, the case you presented did not meet standards. That doesn't mean the people who have worked on your case "didn't care" it means that the evidence in the case as presented did not pose a clear cut decision of disabled.
Not all chronic health conditions meet requirements for disability, even as lax as they are. Blessed Be Tim.
12:48 PM. when I said "cared," I meant cared about finding the truth. The truth being, does person A meet the legal definition of "disability" and can they SUSTAIN SGA? Since you are not a claimant, a Rep or an employee, you either fit in as a skinflint or troll. (The one who "helps" the disabled) Perhaps you are unaware of the "quality" of the decision making by some of these ALJs. I think it is easier to get a criminal conviction, where the standard is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt, than it is for some under 50 to be found "disabled" by some ALJs. Read some of the "decisions." You see a systematic dismissal of witness statements, doctors opinions and any other evidence that supports the claimant's testimony. Then you see "leaps of faith" in the "decision" that takes a statement to an extreme interpretation while ignoring the context. An example of this is "patient was able to move his extremities" and took this as evidence of being able to work. This particular statement was in the middle of a six month inability to work due to "back, shoulder, hand pain, etc." AND during the Same appointment where the doctor ordered an MRI (shoulder pain) AND refered to hand/shoulder surgeons. If you think this type of "logic" is acceptable...
Yes I do.
Post a Comment