|
|
Post by pumpkin on May 11, 2024 6:12:55 GMT -5
According to this little gem quietly published in the Federal Register, the maximum fee for representatives is going up to $9,200, effective November 30, 2024. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-10/pdf/2024-10248.pdfHere's the part that's really new: "Beginning in January 2026, along with our announcement regarding other cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) (e.g. for title II benefits, for title XVI payments, or the appointed representative fee assessment), we will annually address the maximum dollar amounts for fee agreements and provide a rationale for either increasing or not increasing the maximum dollar amount based upon the annual COLA for the prior year." |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 11, 2024 13:41:41 GMT -5
According to this little gem quietly published in the Federal Register, the maximum fee for representatives is going up to $9,200, effective November 30, 2024. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-10/pdf/2024-10248.pdfHere's the part that's really new: "Beginning in January 2026, along with our announcement regarding other cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) (e.g. for title II benefits, for title XVI payments, or the appointed representative fee assessment), we will annually address the maximum dollar amounts for fee agreements and provide a rationale for either increasing or not increasing the maximum dollar amount based upon the annual COLA for the prior year." For the reps who actually do their jobs, I'm happy. Their expenses and costs of living have gone up right along with everyone else's. For the reps who don't do their jobs- I'm not thrilled by the change. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 11, 2024 14:37:17 GMT -5
According to this little gem quietly published in the Federal Register, the maximum fee for representatives is going up to $9,200, effective November 30, 2024. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-10/pdf/2024-10248.pdfHere's the part that's really new: "Beginning in January 2026, along with our announcement regarding other cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) (e.g. for title II benefits, for title XVI payments, or the appointed representative fee assessment), we will annually address the maximum dollar amounts for fee agreements and provide a rationale for either increasing or not increasing the maximum dollar amount based upon the annual COLA for the prior year." For the reps who actually do their jobs, I'm happy. Their expenses and costs of living have gone up right along with everyone else's. For the reps who don't do their jobs- I'm not thrilled by the change. You are always free to challenge their fee with region if you don’t feel like they’ve earned it. I’ve done it multiple times and have a case where I’ll do it again in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by nylawyer on May 11, 2024 15:42:40 GMT -5
For the reps who actually do their jobs, I'm happy. Their expenses and costs of living have gone up right along with everyone else's. For the reps who don't do their jobs- I'm not thrilled by the change. You are always free to challenge their fee with region if you don’t feel like they’ve earned it. I’ve done it multiple times and have a case where I’ll do it again in the near future. Two problems. One, I can only challenge a fee if there actually is one, and poor reps tends to end up with unfavorable decisions. Second, and you can correct me on this because I have no first hand knowledge- I am told it is actually quite a bit of work to file one of these challenges, and often with unsatisfying outcomes. I have had a couple of cases where I had made the decision that if the decision came back with a favorable portion, I was going to challenge (usually because even post hearing the rep just would not develop the file and finally I had to just have us do it), but they have never ended up favorable. |
|
|
|
Post by hopefalj on May 12, 2024 19:34:55 GMT -5
You are always free to challenge their fee with region if you don’t feel like they’ve earned it. I’ve done it multiple times and have a case where I’ll do it again in the near future. Two problems. One, I can only challenge a fee if there actually is one, and poor reps tends to end up with unfavorable decisions. Second, and you can correct me on this because I have no first hand knowledge- I am told it is actually quite a bit of work to file one of these challenges, and often with unsatisfying outcomes. I have had a couple of cases where I had made the decision that if the decision came back with a favorable portion, I was going to challenge (usually because even post hearing the rep just would not develop the file and finally I had to just have us do it), but they have never ended up favorable. To your first point, yes, you can’t challenge what isn’t there. I have been told in the past that you can theoretically do a challenge on a favorable case based on a pattern of behavior in other cases, but I’ve never done it. I haven’t found the process of challenging fees to be too onerous. Certainly not as much as when I cut fees in a fee petition. Usually pointing out undue delay in reaching a decision or whatever issue you may have with them will be sufficient to challenge and reduce their fee. I would assume that the success of a challenge largely depends on the willingness of your RCALJ to stand up for you, but every one I’ve dealt with has supported my challenges. If that were to reverse, I would probably stop caring (unless the claimant asks for a review, which I take very seriously). That’s happened in other parts of the job for similar reasons. |
|
|
|
Post by fowlfinder on May 15, 2024 13:00:21 GMT -5
According to this little gem quietly published in the Federal Register, the maximum fee for representatives is going up to $9,200, effective November 30, 2024. www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2024-05-10/pdf/2024-10248.pdfHere's the part that's really new: "Beginning in January 2026, along with our announcement regarding other cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) (e.g. for title II benefits, for title XVI payments, or the appointed representative fee assessment), we will annually address the maximum dollar amounts for fee agreements and provide a rationale for either increasing or not increasing the maximum dollar amount based upon the annual COLA for the prior year." For the reps who actually do their jobs, I'm happy. Their expenses and costs of living have gone up right along with everyone else's. For the reps who don't do their jobs- I'm not thrilled by the change. Its still a 25% cap. And if cases are decided more quickly (ie the "backlog" is managed) there are few back owed months, and less likely that the maximum fee will be paid out, regardless of how high the cap is. I am sure the reps will appreciate the change in the cap figure, but it may not effect the bottom line a whole lot. (Or the DDS backlog is much worse than I am seeing). |
|
|
|
Post by jimmyjiggles on May 15, 2024 16:06:28 GMT -5
Tying the cap to cola is something that is way, way overdue. I once had a 5 hour comment dispute with someone on Charles Halls blog about this very topic! That was like 10 years ago, but finally my cries have been heard!!
In my opinion, all fees, caps, etc should always be tied to cola. Heck, really any budget item that is regular and recurring/not for a fixed period should be increased by the cola every year. To do otherwise basically underfunds whatever you are proposing within a year. Then you need to waste time with bills and other fixes to get the amounts up to the current/realistic amount/cost. Have automatic cola adjustments and your budget is always updated to reflect the current prices/costs etc.
I’ll relinquish the soapbox now
|
|
