Bipartisan lawmakers confronted a senior official from the Social Security Administration on Thursday, questioning the agency’s management of pervasive issues in the disability benefits system, which encompassed enduring claim backlogs and escalating phone service delays.

Despite hopes of recovery following pandemic-related slowdowns and closures, experts informed the congressional panel that the Social Security claims system has remained stagnant for nearly two years. According to agency data, over 1 million Americans still await initial decisions on benefits, with a processing duration averaging 220 days, this is almost twice the processing time observed in 2019 and significantly surpasses the minimum performance threshold of 60 days defined by Social Security.

Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.), chairman of the Social Security panel of the House Committee on Ways and Means, stressed the devastating consequences of these delays during the 2½-hour hearing.

This hearing comes in the wake of reports in The Washington Post regarding a disability benefits system that has faced issues for years, with service deteriorating significantly during the pandemic. The article in The Post highlighted the difficulties Social Security encounters when delivering essential customer support throughout its various functions, especially within state offices. These state offices handle the evaluation of claims through a complex and decentralized system that was set up by Congress.

Committee members, despite political differences, came together to question Linda Kerr-Davis, Social Security’s acting assistant deputy commissioner of operations, about a range of problems. Among these issues was the agency’s use of an obsolete job list, last revised in 1977, to reject benefit claims. Lawmakers also cited the long wait times for service on the agency’s toll-free number, where callers have waited an average of 36 minutes this year, up from 32 minutes last year.

Kerr-Davis acknowledged that the agency was falling short of delivering the desired service.

To improve service, Social Security is implementing various strategies, including deploying dozens of employees from headquarters and regional offices to assist state offices in processing claims. Additionally, the organization has made efforts to engage with governors for assistance in recruiting and retaining employees. Kerr-Davis stressed the importance of securing extra funding in this regard.

However, lawmakers pointed to deeper systemic issues. Democrats largely attributed these problems to budget constraints, while Republicans directed their focus towards a bureaucratic and slow-to-act culture, with little hope for immediate solutions.

Rep. Brian Higgins (D-N.Y.) stressed the severity of Social Security’s customer service problem, describing it as inhumane and inefficient. He noted the frustration of having to inform constituents, who call their offices seeking assistance, that their claims are likely to be denied, initiating a lengthy appeals process.

Lawmakers discussed a stream of calls from constituents who waited over a year for their benefit claims to be denied, only to be directed to a time-consuming appeals process. A Florida lawmaker cited that it took an average of 623 days for his state office to process an initial claim and the first level of appeals.

To address this inconsistency in approval rates, lawmakers questioned why the system denied 62 percent of initial claims but approved over half of those that were appealed and heard by an administrative law judge. Supporters pointed out that the contrast frequently stemmed from superficial assessments conducted by state disability examiners with lower wages, as opposed to the thorough evaluations performed by appeals judges who had to invest more time in reviewing the evidence.

Rep. Randy Feenstra (R-Iowa) expressed his frustration, declaring that the system was broken and demanding action to fix it.

Kerr-Davis attributed many of these ongoing problems to a culmination of factors, highlighting that they didn’t suddenly appear overnight.

The panel’s members held contrasting views regarding the reasons for the system’s failure and potential remedies. Republicans blamed rigid policies and management failures, while Democrats pointed to decades of staff reductions and budget cuts, particularly as Social Security processed more retirement claims from aging baby boomers. Several Democrats noted that Republicans had included cuts to the Social Security budget in their plan to reduce federal spending. However, experts pointed out that the number of disabled and elderly people applying for disability benefits had declined during the pandemic and had not fully rebounded.

The frustration towards the agency was evident across both political aisles.

President Biden has requested a $1.4 billion increase in Social Security’s budget for fiscal year 2024, which would raise it to $15.5 billion. Although Congress had allocated an additional $785 million to the agency in the previous year, it did not result in quicker processing of disability claims or enhanced phone assistance, and both of these aspects were anticipated to worsen.

Lawmakers repeatedly referenced The Post’s reporting on Social Security’s continued use of an outdated list of occupations, which the Labor Department retired decades ago, despite the availability of a more modern list. Over the course of two decades, Social Security has invested around $300 million in an attempt to update this list, but it remains untouched.

The use of this antiquated list was a source of frustration for claimants who were denied based on job availability that was obsolete. David Camp, interim Chief Executive of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives, described this policy as another blow to claimants, causing many to abandon the claims process due to discouragement.

Ferguson found it perplexing that the disability program appeared to be lacking funding despite having a $2 billion budget allocated solely for information technology projects. He stressed the importance of transparency when it comes to distributing budgets and the effectiveness of expenditures.