Social
Security is changing the regulations concerning how they will consider
medical evidence from doctors. The new regulations may make it even
harder for new claimants to receive Social Security disability benefits.
Up
until now, Social Security decision makers were required to give more
weight to opinions from a claimant's treating physician. For new claims
filed after March 27, 2017, this will no longer be true. Now, Social
Security decision makers may decide how much weight to give medial
evidence, regardless of whether the doctor has treated the patient or
not.
What
concerns me about this new rule is this: Suppose my claimant has seen
his doctor 4 or 5 times a year for the past 10 years. This treating
physician has ordered multiple tests and has examined the patient
multiple times. The patient then applies for disability and Social
Security sends him to one of their doctors for a one-time examination.
At least in theory, Social Security can give the same weight to the
opinion of the doctor who did a one-time exam as they give to the doctor
who has treated the patient for 10 years.
It
is too early to be sure that this rule change will work against the
claimant and make benefits more difficult to get. However, I cannot see
how this change can possibly help the claimant or make benefits
easier to get. (A Social Security claim is already plenty tough with
denial rates around 70 percent at the application level).
It
seems that for the past 6 or 7 years, Social Security has come under
increasing pressure to cut benefits, reduce new awards and tighten the
belt. The Congress is largely behind this drive but it is assisted by
the misinformed media, which believe that Social Security is riddled
with fraud and waste and that benefits are too easy to obtain. This is
largely baloney; however, the media pieces I've seen simply didn't take
time to do their homework.
A
year or two from now we'll know the effect of the new regulations that
went into effect yesterday. But if I were a betting man, I'd bet that
award rates fall from where they are now--and they're already at the
lowest point since 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment