From the documented information I have received, in most instances the greatest delay occurs between the date a hearing is requested and the time hearings are actually held. One of my constituents filed for a hearing in September, 1974. It was August, 1975 before it was held. Another constituent made his original application in February, 1974 and did not have the hearing until July, 1975, after requesting it in January of 1975. In another instance, a constituent made an original application in October, 1973 and finally had a hearing October, 1974 with a decision finally received in late March, 1975 which was then followed by a review by the Appeals Council! In yet another case, the hearing was requested in August, held in March, and the decision received in late April. A six-month plus waiting period just to have the hearing followed by the time needed for the judge to render a decision followed by a possible review by the Appeals Council involves a 9-month plus time element to begin with. The delays in the first stage of determination (doctors' reports, medical and hospital records, further examinations) involve factors over which the Social Security Administration has no control. It is therefore logical to change the area over which it does exercise control.

As I read through the proposed legislation, however, I am not at all sure that it remedies the situation. Section 1124 (1) reads "Any duly requested hearing to which an individual is entitled thereunder will be held within a reasonable period of time after such hearing is so requested . . .". I am concerned with what has almost consistently been a 6-month plus wait to have the hearing. I would like to propose the Section to state "any duly requested hearing to which an individual is entitled will be held within ninety days after such a hearing is so requested . . .". It is my feeling that "a reasonable period of time" can be interpreted to mean anything that the interpreter wishes it to.

Section (2) (A) reads "Not later than ninety days after any hearing the Secretary shall render a final determination on the issues . . .". I would propose that the section read "Not later than sixty days . . ." as the decisions received by most of my constituents were received within 45 days of the hearing. There are exceptions, however; in one instance the decision took 5 months! I would also propose (B) Subsection 2(a) read "except that the applicable period of time shall be 90 days" rather than the present "except that the applicable period of time shall be one hundred and ten days." Otherwise, the proposed legislation might actually lengthen the process for my constituents with reference to the receipt of the decision.

I have been advised that there is other legislation before this committee, Mr. Chairman, which, from my experience, would be an enormous help toward eliminating the inexcusable delays.

Under the current system, Hearing Examiners (appointed by the Secretary of H.E.W.) are allowed to hear only disability cases from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) applications and not applications from regular Social Security (Title II) applicants. Today only Administrative Law Judges (career Civil Service Positions) can hear cases which in any way involve regular Social Security (Title II) applications. This makes little real sense, Mr. Chairman, with regard to disability cases, because the disability guidelines are the same for both kinds of applicants, and the qualifications for Hearing Examiners and Administrative Law Judges, I understand, are exactly the same.

Today, in Delaware at least, the Hearing Examiners are not fully utilized locally and often are called upon to travel to other states to hear the SSI disability cases, while delays and backlogs involving regular Social Security (Title II) disability continue to mount.

The pending legislation, Mr. Chairman, would give the Hearing Examiners and the Administrative Law Judges the same status, permitting them to hear both types of cases. This legislation, or some similar change, would, in my State, be another big step that could be taken to better utilize existing manpower, and thereby reduce the intolerable and inexcusale delays which my constituents, and I know many others across the country, are facing in disability determination cases.

The backlog of cases waiting for hearings is partially the blame for the delay in time according to the Social Security Administration yet a 40% to 50% reversal of decisions takes place at the hearing level. It would appear there ought to be possible revision of the process at an earlier level-reconsideration-so as to avoid some of this backlog. Oviously factors are being overlooked which would work to the applicant's benefit.

STATEMENT OF HON. DANTE B. FASCELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee, I am glad to have this opportunity to submit views on a problem that is of increasing importance in my congressional district.

Your interest in scheduling hearings on delays in the Social Security appeals process is commendable. This effort to find ways to improve administrative procedures and speed up the processing of claims should be of great benefit. It is distressing that those who have contributed to the Social Security program over many years of hard work now find that in their time of greatest need, they are unable to obtain benefits without months of frustrating delay. Yet I have received a few complaints from constituents about the length of time required to have their benefits approved in appeals cases.

This problem is particularly acute in locations, such as the South Florida area which I represent, where there are large numbers of retirees. The higher proportion of persons receiving, or who should be receiving, Social Security checks in my district has brought the matter more forcefully to my attention. I know the Subcommittee will be receiving data on the overall number of Social Security cases of various types currently pending in the appeals process. You will also learn of the average length of time required to schedule a hearing, reach a decision, and then have action taken on the decision.

As we all are, I am in receipt of individual complaints about the unfair hardship involved in excessive delays. The people involved may be elderly, disabled, or otherwise unable to find other sources of income while awaiting a decision on their benefits eligibility.

For these people, a monthly Social Security check is often the difference between viability and economic catastrophe. A typical delay of six months to a year or more means seemingly interminable suffering.

While I recognize that the government cannot simply hand out Social Security checks without question in cases where there is a dispute over eligibility, we also have an obligation to those who placed their trust in Social Security as a means of self-support after their employment ceased. Elemental fairness requires that decisions be made and benefits paid in a more reasonable period of time.

I hope that your hearings can develop information on ways by which the administrative process can be accelerated. I have co-sponsored H.R. 9580, the Social Security Rights Act, as a means of providing emergency payments if appeal decisions are not made within specified time periods. As an alternative to legislation, application of the Administrative Procedures Act to Social Security cases could be considered.

In any event, we cannot stand idly by while our constituents suffer delays that might be due to insufficient appeals personnel, clerical workers, computer difficulties, or other causes that can be resolved by more efficient administration. I urge the Subcommittee to take prompt action on behalf of the many needy people in South Florida and all across the nation who have applied for Social Security benefits but are suffering from inordinate delays due to the inability of the Social Security Administration to act in a reasonable time.

STATEMENT OF HON. DONALD M. FRASER, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA

Mr. Chairman, the Social Security System began 35 years ago. It has grown to become one of the largest, most complex, and most successful Federal programs in our nation's history. Our goal continues to be providing for the financial security of millions of Americans. Today, 31 million people per year receive some form of social security benefits. Unfortunately, over the years Congress and the Social Security Administration have not recognized a growing roadblock to getting these benefits to eligible individuals.

Today, Social Security offices all over the country are experiencing increasing backlogs of appeals hearings, caused mainly by insufficient numbers of administrative law judges. The result has been to leave thousands of beneficiaries in a precarious financial position for months on end, denying them the benefits to which they might be entitled.

I'm sure the delays in Minnesota are as bad as those being experienced all across the country. Currently, only four administrative law judges have been provided by the Social Security Administration for the entire State of Minnesota, plus Superior, Wisconsin. With 800 hearing applications pending, our judges are now reviewing cases from November and December, 1974-a delay of nine and ten months. Compounding the problem is the possibility that one of the judges is new and the possibility that another judge may be transferred.

Those living in the more rural areas of the State, where the judges have decided they will go only if a group of cases can be heard the same day at the same location, are experiencing even longer waits for hearings.

Some examples of actual cases handled by my Minnesota district office, I think, illustrate the unnecessary frustration felt by potential Social Security recipients: Case 1. Mrs. E. C. first applied for disability benefits in February, 1974. Her application was denied and she applied for a reconsideration on August 18, 1974. The reconsideration was denied and she applied for a hearing on November 14, 1974. She finally had the hearing on August 27, 1975an 8-month wait. She still does not have the notice of determination.

Case 2. Mr. D. K. applied for disability benefits in August, 1972. His application was denied. He applied for a hearing on August 5, 1974, which took place on February 6, 1975. He received the notice of the hearing on April 23, 1975, won approval, and was awarded benefits. His hearing delay was 7 months, plus almost two and a half-month wait for the final determination.

Case 3. Mr. D. D. requested a hearing on February 3, 1975. After a delay of over 7 months, his hearing may be scheduled for the end of October when a judge from another region comes to Minneapolis to help with the backlog. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, when Congress provided for an administrative hearing process in the Social Security Act, it was to protect individuals' rights to pursue the benefits they felt due them-not to frustrate their efforts.

It is our responsibility, then, to provide the funding and authorization necessary so that additional administrative law judges can be hired to eliminate these long delays.

I am hopeful this committee will strongly recommend this needed improvement in our Social Security System's hearings process.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. HANLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that the Subcommittee on Social Security has recognized the severity of the problems being created by the tremendous backlog of social security cases awaiting disposition before administrative law judges. This has been a matter of great concern to me for quite some time, and I am pleased to be able to appear before you today to present my views. I sincerely hope that the backlog of cases will be eliminated as a result of legislation which will be reported by this Subcommittee. In this regard, I would like to go on record in support of H.R. 8847, a bill which I have cosponsored.

A few months ago, an individual in my Congressional District who filed a hearing request on the denial of a social security claim could expect to wait six months for a hearing. Presently, the waiting period has increased to nine months. This creates tremendous hardships for those disabled individuals who cannot work and have no income.

While the Administration would cite the Black Lung and SSI programs as the major reasons for the backlog, the problems appear to be considerably more complex. Certainly, in some areas of the United States, where the coal mining industry is predominate, the number of Black Lung claims would present great problems. However, in most areas of the United States, the number of Black Lung claims are minimal. Statistics from the Syracuse Office of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals indicate that only 6.15 percent of the hearing requests which have come into that office from the beginning of the year through August 16th, were Black Lung claims (refer to attached table). Since that office services an area which includes a portion of the Pennsylvania coal mining district, the caseload of Black Lung claims which come into that office is probably greater than that in many other areas of the United States.

Also, while the initial impact of the SSI program no doubt added to the hearing caseload, this cannot be a valid explanation for the ever increasing backlog. Again, statistics from the Syracuse Office of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals (as reflected in the attached table) indicate that 20.61 percent of the cases received from the beginning of the year through August 16, was concurrent SSI claims. The number of SSI claims has remained rather consistent, and would not account for the increase in the backlog during the last several months.

However, a major shortcoming in the present system is the lack of communication between the Social Security Administration and the claimant. An individual whose disability claim has been denied is sent a form notice which merely states that he, or she, does not meet the requirements for disability as defined by law. The claimant is never advised what the requirements and law are, nor is the claimant informed why these requirements were not met. The claimant who attempts to uncover this information on his own usually runs up against a stone wall. Indeed, the caseworker in my office has informed me that it is very difficult for her to obtain any substantial information as to the precise grounds for denial of a claim. If my office is unable to obtain this information for my constituents, one can imagine the difficulty which a claimant would have in attempting to obtain this information on his own. The legislation which I have cosponsored would provide for a claimant to meet with a representative from the Social Security Administration upon filing a request for reconsideration to discuss the intial denial of his claim, and would provide for the claimant to receive a written report summarizing the evidence and citing and discussing pertinent laws and regulations upon affirmation of the initial denial at the reconsideration level. While both of these procedures would be desirable, it may prove too costly to implement both of them. However, a detailed written statement, as provided for in H.R. 8847, should certainly be provided to the claimant upon affirmation of denial at the reconsideration level.

Once the claimant is furnished such information, I firmly believe that the number of hearing requests on claims, wherein the lack of total disability is clearcut, would be greatly reduced. Also, in those cases where a claim has been denied because of a lack of evidence establishing disability, it would enable the claimant to obtain any additional documentation which may be needed in support of the claim. This, too, would cut down on the amount of time for final disposition of a claim.

Another difficulty is the amount of time which a claimant is presently allowed from the time of the initial denial to file a request for reconsideration, and the amount of time which a claimant is allowed to file a request for a hearing after the upholding of the denial on reconsideration. I have been advised that the majority of claimants wait the maximum amount of time before requesting a hearing. By the time a request for a hearing is received, as much as 18 months could have elapsed since the initial claim was filed. In many instances, the claimant's condition has deteriorated during that time span. While the claimant may indeed not have been disabled at the time of the initial claim or request for reconsideration, by the time the case comes up for a hearing his condition may have deteriorated to the point where he is now disabled. Thus, the claim which comes before an administrative law judge is, in essence, different from the claim which was originally filed. Upon reversal of the original denial, the claimant is paid retroactive benefits, when, in all probability, the claimant should not have been entitled to benefits for the entire period of time. This constitutes an unnecessary drain on the trust fund. A provision of H.R. 8847 would eliminate this difficulty by reducing the amount of time to file reconsideration and hearing requests from the present 6 months to 30 days.

Additionally, administrative law judges serving within the Social Security Administration are not treated the same as those serving with other agencies of the Federal government. In the City of Syracuse, City Court judges are paid more than the Social Security Administration's administrative law judges. Yet, City judges only have jurisdiction in civil cases involving sums less than $6,000, while the average amount involved in a social security disability claim is probably close to $60,000. Judge Alfred T. Tyminski, who is Administrative Law Judge In-charge of the Bureau of Hearings and Appeals in Syracuse, New York, advised me that last year he adjudicated claims worth about $10 million, and he expects that the claims which he will adjudicate this year will be worth twice as much. In consideration of the awesome responsibilities involved, it is little wonder that the Social Security Administration would have difficulty retaining

qualified administrative law judges. It is only fair that administrative law judges serving with the Social Security Administration be treated equitably. Therefore, a provision of H.R. 8847 would allow for the Social Security Administration's administrative law judges to be classified at a grade not lower than GS-16, the rating currently assigned to administrative law judges serving with other Federal agencies.

Another major deficiency in the present system, which I feel is in large part responsible for the backlog of claims, is the improper development of claims at the reconsideration level. In this regard, Judge Tyminski has informed me that approximately 70 percent of the cases which come before him need additional development. The only documentation contained in a claim folder which he recently received consisted of notes of a telephone conversation with the claimant's physician, and these notes were not even signed by the person who made them. In such instances, the Judges must assemble the necessary documentation needed in order to have enough information to make a fair assessment of these claims. If such information is not contained in the file by the time the case comes to the hearing level, one must wonder what was accomplished at the reconsideration level, and upon what information the reconsideration decision was based. While it might help to hire more administrative law judges, in my estimation this would be skirting the issue and would not solve the problem. The fact still remains that claims are not being reviewed carefully enough at the reconsideration level. This is further evidenced by the fact that close to 50 percent of claim denials is presently being overturned at the hearing level. This indicates that many of these cases should have been allowed at the reconsideration level, and should not have had to come before an administrative law judge for a hearing. Aside from the inconvenience to the claimant, unnecessary hearings create needless expenditures, as it costs about $400 to hold a hearing. The bill H.R. 8847 does not deal with the problem of case development; however, I believe this is an area which definitely deserves attention. Inasmuch as the State agencies currently have the staff and facilities for the development of claims, it should be unnecessary to hire additional judges and to increase their staffs in order to accomplish this. Therefore, the administrative law judges should be able to remand any insufficiently developed cases to the State agency for additional documentation and development. In order to make certain that such development is done properly, the claim should be reviewed by the administrative law judge or a qualified staff member, and a statement of the additional documentation or development required should be furnished to the State agency. This procedure should save considerable time for the judges and their staff...... time which could be effectively used to hold hearings and write hearing determinations.

If all of the aforementioned procedures were implemented, I believe that the present corps of administrative law judges would be able to adjudicate claims more efficiently and effectively. As a result, the backlog of claims would diminish rapidly, and claimants would receive better service. Therefore, I respectfully urge that the members of this Subcommittee give favorable consideration to the provisions which I have outlined today.

In closing. I would like to again thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to present my views on this important matter, and would like to assure you of my support of any legislative measures which may be reported containing provisions similar to the ones I have described today.

HEARING REQUESTS RECEIVED BY THE BUREAU OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS, SYRACUSE, N.Y., FROM JAN. 1, 1975, THROUGH AUG. 16, 1975