Psych Is Killing SSDI: We're Broke, Get Over It: 35.5% of Disability Beneficiaries Have 'Mental Disorder' 43.2% in D.C.

CNSnews;

By Ali Meyer January 28, 2014 - 3:07 PM

(CNSNews.com) - “Mental disorder” is the leading “diagnostic group” for disabled people receiving federal disability insurance benefits, with 35.5 percent of all disabled beneficiaries having such a disorder, according to the latest Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program.

The report provides a statistical profile of the 10,088,739 disabled beneficiaries who were receiving federal disability benefits as of December 2012.

Those 10,088,739 disabled beneficiaries were almost double the 5,044,388 disabled beneficiaries who had been in the program as of December 1995.

In Washington, D.C., according to the report, 43.2 percent of disabled beneficiaries as of December 2012 had been diagnosed with a mental disorder. (See Table 11 in the report.)

In Massachusetts--which led the nation in this metric--50.1 percent of disabled beneficiaries had been diagnosed with a mental disorder.

Within the “mental disorders diagnostic group,” the most common specific diagnosis for disabled beneficiaries was a “mood disorder.” According to the report, as of December 2012, 14.1 percent of all disabled beneficiaries in the United States had such a disorder. (See Table 11.A. in the report.)

In Massachusetts--which led in this category also--22.7 percent of the disabled beneficiaries had been diagnosed with a mood disorder.

Washington, D.C., lagged slightly behind the national percentage, with 13.8 percent of its disabled beneficiaries having been diagnosed with a mood disorder.

However, Washington, D.C. led the nation in the percentage of disabled beneficiaries who had been diagnosed with “schizophrenic and other psychotic disorders.” 10.8 percent of the disabled beneficiaries in D.C. had received that diagnosis. (See Table 11.A. in the report.)

As of December 2012, according to the report, there were 10,088,739 disabled beneficiaries receiving federal disability insurance benefits. These included 8,826,591 disabled workers; 1,006,676 disabled adult children; and 255,472 disabled widows and widowers. (See Table 3 in the report.)

A disabled worker, according to the Social Security Administration (SSA), is a “beneficiary who worked in covered employment long enough to be insured and who had been working recently in covered employment prior to disability onset.”

“Individuals are considered to be disabled only if their physical or mental impairment(s) are of such severity that they are not only unable to do their previous work but cannot--because of their age, education, or work experience--engage in any other kind of substantial gainful activity (SGA) that exists in the national economy,” says SSA.

“If something happens to a worker,” says SSA, “benefits may be payable to their widow, widower or surviving divorced spouse with a disability if the following conditions are met: he or she is between ages 50 and 60, their condition meets the definition of disability for adults and the disability started before or within seven years of the workers death.”

“A disabled person aged 18 or older--a son, daughter, or eligible grandchild of a retired, deceased, or disabled worker – whose disability began before age 22” can also qualify for disability benefits, says SSA.

Of the 10,088,739 disabled people receiving federal disability benefits in December 2012, according to the report, 3,576,844—or 35.5 percent--were diagnosed with a mental disorder.

The second largest diagnostic group for disabled beneficiaries was “musculoskeletal system and connective tissue” problems.  Of the 10,088,739 disabled people receiving federal disability benefits in December 2012, 2,730,100—or 27.1 percent—had been diagnosed with a problem in this category.

The ten states (and the District of Columbia) with the largest percentage of local disability beneficiaries diagnosed with a “mental disorder” include: 1) Massachusetts, 50.1 percent; 2) New Hampshire, 49.5 percent; 3) Hawaii, 47.5 percent; 4) Rhode Island, 47.2 percent; 5) Minnesota, 46.9 percent; 6) Vermont, 45.3 percent; 7) Connecticut, 43.9 percent; 8) the District of Columbia, 43.2 percent; 9) Maine, 42.9 percent; and 10) Washington, 40.1 percent.

The ten states with the lowest percentage of local disabled beneficiaries diagnosed with a mental disorder include: 1) Alabama, 29.2 percent; 2) Georgia, 29.5 percent; 3) Arkansas, 30.1 percent; 4) South Carolina, 30.2 percent; 5) West Virginia, 30.3. percent; 6) Louisiana, 30.3 percent; 7) Florida, 30.7 percent; 8) Nevada, 31.0 percent; 9) North Carolina, 31.5 percent; and 10) Delaware, 31.7 percent.

Within the mental disorders diagnostic group, the SSA reports numbers for eight subgroups. These include autistic disorders (37,445 or 0.4 percent of all disabled beneficiaries), developmental disorders (12,193 or 0.1 percent), childhood and adolescent disorders not elsewhere classified (11,621 or 0.1 percent), intellectual disability (845,189 or 8.4 percent), mood disorders (1,424,681 or 14.1 percent), organic mental disorders (341,209 or 3.4 percent), schizophrenic and other psychotic disorders (518,752 or 5.1 percent), and other (385,754 or 3.8 percent).

A mood disorder, otherwise known as an affective disorder, says SSA, is: “Characterized by a disturbance of mood, accompanied by a full or partial manic or depressive syndrome. Mood refers to a prolonged emotion that colors the whole psychic life; it generally involves either depression or elation.”

To be determined to be suffering a disabling mood disorder, a person must exhibit a combination of multiple factors. These include such things as “appetite disturbance with change in weight; or sleep disturbance; or psychomotor agitation or retardation; or decreased energy; or feelings of guilt or worthlessness; or difficulty concentrating or thinking; or thoughts of suicide; or hallucinations, delusions, or paranoid thinking.”

The states in which the highest percentages of local disabled beneficiaries have been diagnosed with a  mood disorder include: 1) Massachusetts, 22.7 percent; 2) New Hampshire, 22.0 percent; 3) Rhode Island, 20.5 percent; 4) Minnesota, 18.1 percent; 5) Vermont, 17.2 percent; 6) Connecticut, 16.9 percent; 7) Arizona, 16.8 percent; 8) Maine, 16.7 percent,; 9) Hawaii, 16.6 percent; and 10) Ohio, 16.1 percent.

The states in which the lowest percentages of local disabled beneficiaries have been diagnosed with a mood disorder include: 1) North Dakota, 9.0 percent; 2) Louisiana, 9.7 percent; 3) Montana, 9.9 percent; 4) South Dakota, 10.2 percent; 5) Georgia, 10.3 percent; 6) Alaska, 10.3 percent; 7) Wyoming, 10.6 percent; 8) North Carolina, 10.7 percent; 9) West Virginia, 10.9 percent; and 10) South Carolina, 11.0 percent.

In 1984, Congress made amendments to the disability program that according to a history of the program posted on the Social Security Administration’s website, increased the number of beneficiaries with “mental impairments.”

“Disability benefits could not be discontinued unless there had been medical improvement,  the beneficiary was capable of performing substantial gainful activity because of medical/vocational therapy or technology; or the initial determination was in error,” the SSA history says in explaining the 1984 amendments.

“The Secretary was required to revise the criteria under the Mental Disorders category in the Listing of Impairments used to make disability determinations, and SSA was prohibited from conducting continuing disability reviews in mental impairment cases until the revisions were published in a final regulation,” says the SSA history.

“One significant pattern that emerged following the 1984 Amendments involved beneficiaries with mental impairments,” says the history. “Changes in the medical listings had the effect of increasing this category of disability beneficiaries. The revised listings for mental impairments reduced the weight given to medical factors and put a greater weight on functional capacities, such as the applicant's ability to perform activities of daily living. They also required that evidence provided by the applicant's health care provider be considered first, before a consultative examination. Between 1985 and 1986, the proportion of awards for mental impairments increased from 18 percent to 30 percent of all awards, and has remained at approximately the same level ever since.”

Thank You Ms Meyer and CNS.


Here's Social Security from the Heritage Foundation

Social Security Trust Fund Reports Massive Deficits, Benefit Cuts By 2033

By Romina Boccia and Rachel Greszler May 31, 2013

Social Security ran a $55 billion deficit in 2012, closing out three years of consecutive cash-flow deficits as the program’s unfunded obligations continue to grow.[1]

The combined 75-year unfunded obligation of the Social Security and Disability trust funds (referred to as the OASDI trust fund) is $12.3 trillion. This is a $1 trillion increase from last year’s unfunded obligation of $11.3 trillion.[2]

The combined Social Security and Disability programs are projected to remain solvent—that is, they are expected to have enough revenue from payroll taxes, interest on the trust fund balance, and repayment of borrowed trust fund dollars to pay out scheduled benefits—through 2033.[3] This is the same date as projected in last year’s report.

If no action is taken to improve the program’s solvency before 2033, benefits will be reduced across the board by 23 percent.

Social Security Is Already Adding to the Deficit

In 2033, the Social Security trust fund will be exhausted, and the program will be able to pay only three-fourths of scheduled benefits. While the Social Security system is considered solvent until that year, this is true only on paper. Social Security already adds to budget deficits.

Since 2010, Social Security has taken in less money through payroll tax revenues than it pays out in benefits, generating cash-flow deficits. Social Security’s 2012 cash-flow deficit was $55 billion.

Social Security covers cash-flow deficits by drawing down interest payments from the U.S. Treasury on previous trust fund borrowing. Cash-flow deficits mean the Treasury can no longer cover interest payments to the Social Security trust fund by issuing additional IOUs; instead, it must produce actual cash from taxes or borrowing. Thus, Social Security is adding to today’s deficits.

What About the Trust Fund?

In the past, when Social Security ran cash-flow surpluses, the federal government spent those surpluses on other federal spending, and in return, the Treasury credited Social Security’s trust fund with special-issue government securities. Although this $2.7 trillion in securities is not counted in the total amount of debt held by the public, it represents real debt that will have to be repaid over the coming decades.[4]

It is true that the Social Security trust fund represents legitimate repayments plus interest, but this distinction has no bearing on the federal budget’s bottom line. Imagine a family that sets aside money for a child’s college education but then borrows all of that money for other spending. Once the time for college arrives, the family will have to scramble to pay tuition because the IOUs in the college account represent money the family must pay itself.

So it is with Social Security’s trust fund. Congress spent all the excess revenues when Social Security was running surpluses, and now repaying those revenues is adding to deficits.

As Chart 1 shows, Social Security repayments represent a considerable portion of current and future deficits.

Earned Benefit or Entitlement?

Past and current retirees receive more in benefits than they paid into the system.

An analysis by the Urban Institute revealed that an average-earning male who reached age 65 in 1960 received $6.39 in Social Security benefits for every dollar he paid in Social Security taxes. This ratio has declined over time to $2.12 for workers who reached age 65 in 1980, 92 cents for workers who reached age 65 in 2010, and 84 cents for workers who will reach age 65 in 2030.[5]

As Social Security has shifted from a program to protect the elderly from poverty to a potential decades-long income subsidy, current workers and younger generations will inevitably bear the burden of Social Security’s drain on the federal budget. Raising payroll taxes on today’s and tomorrow’s workers to cover Social Security’s funding shortfall would only add to their burden.

Three Social Security Reforms

To address Social Security’s massive and growing cash-flow deficits, lawmakers should immediately pursue three important reforms:

1. Fix Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment. Social Security’s cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is based on an outdated measure of changes in the cost of living that fails to account for how people react to changes in prices. Lawmakers should index Social Security’s COLA to the chained Consumer Price Index (CPI), which acknowledges that people choose less expensive and different goods and services in response to changes in prices. This would more accurately protect the value of benefits while improving Social Security’s finances.[6]
2. Increase the early and full retirement ages. Since Social Security’s inception, life expectancy at birth in the United States has increased by about 17 years, while life expectancy at age 65 has increased by about seven years.[7] Yet Social Security’s full retirement age has increased by only two years, and the early retirement age has not increased at all. Social Security’s retirement age serves as an implicit guideline for actual retirement, as more than 70 percent of eligible workers choose to take Social Security benefits at the early retirement age of 62. For Social Security, this means greater financial strain, and for the economy, it means a smaller workforce, lower economic growth, and less revenue. Lawmakers should gradually and predictably increase the early and full retirement ages and then index both to increases in life expectancy.
3. Focus Social Security benefits on those who need them most. Social Security was designed as a program to protect the elderly from poverty, yet it pays benefits to more than 47,000 millionaires and leaves many low-income recipients in need of additional welfare benefits.[8] Lawmakers should phase out benefits for retirees with high levels of non–Social Security income and provide a true system of social insurance that focuses on seniors who need it most. Lawmakers should also consider a minimum flat benefit level to protect all seniors from poverty in retirement.

Social Security Needs Reform Today

Social Security is already placing an increasing burden on the federal budget, and all beneficiaries face a 23 percent benefit cut at projected trust fund exhaustion in 2033. Action should be taken today to protect Social Security’s most vulnerable beneficiaries without burdening younger generations through tax increases.

Lawmakers should immediately replace the current COLA adjustment with the more accurate chained CPI, raise the early and full-retirement ages gradually and predictably, focus Social Security benefits on those who need them most, and alleviate poverty in old age with a minimum flat benefit.

—Romina Boccia is Assistant Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Rachel Greszler is Senior Policy Analyst in Economics and Entitlements in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation.

[1]U.S. Social Security Administration, The 2013 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, May 31, 2013,http://www.socialsecurity.gov/OACT/TR/2013/index.html (accessed May 31, 2013).

[2]Today, the trust fund holds $2.7 trillion in government securities, and it will be exhausted by 2033. The 75-year shortfall between already-promised benefits and expected payroll tax revenues is $9.6 trillion, but paying the IOUs in the trust fund will also draw from general fund revenues, bringing the true 75-year OASDI unfunded obligation to $12.3 trillion.

[3]The Social Security trust fund (OASI) is projected to remain solvent through 2035, while the Disability trust fund (DI) will run dry in 2016. In the absence of reform, DI program benefits would have to be reduced or eligibility limited beginning in less than three years. Alternatively, lawmakers may choose to reallocate the distribution of OASI and DI payroll taxes, boosting DI solvency while weakening OASI solvency.

[4]David C. John. “Misleading the Public: How the Social Security Trust Fund Really Works,” Heritage Foundation Executive Memorandum No. 940, September 2, 2004,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/09/misleading-the-public-how-the-social-security-trust-fund-really-works.

[5]C. Eugene Steuerle and Caleb Quakenbush, “Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Benefits over a Lifetime: 2012 Update,” Urban Institute, http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412660-Social-Security-and-Medicare-Taxes-and-Benefits-Over-a-Lifetime.pdf (accessed May 30, 2013).

[6]See Romina Boccia and Rachel Greszler, “Social Security Benefits and the Impact of the Chained CPI,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2799, May 21, 2012,http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/05/social-security-benefits-and-the-impact-of-the-chained-cpi.

[7]U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Health, United States, 2011,” Table 22, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#022 (accessed May 29, 2013); “United States Life Tables, 2002,” http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr53/nvsr53_06.pdf (accessed May 29, 2013).

[8]Face the Facts USA, “Thousands of Millionaires Collect Social Security,” March 6, 2013, http://www.facethefactsusa.org/facts/millionaires-receiving-social-security/ (accessed May 28, 2013).

Thank You Ms Boccia, Ms Greszler, and Heritage.


Mood Disorders.

We're Broke. Get Over It.