Statement of Dale Cowan, National Association of Disability Representatives, San Antonio, Texas

Chairman Shaw, Congressman Matusi and members of the subcommittee. My name is Dale Cowan. I am the president of the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR). NADR is a new non-profit organization in its first operational year. I am delighted that you have sought our views on this subject. As our organization has a deep interest in the activity of your committee, I hope that we will be given the opportunity to speak on a variety of issues facing Social Security

Presently, only attorneys are eligible to have their fees withheld by the Social Security Administration. Non-attorneys are not presently nor have they ever been allowed to utilize this service. On behalf of the National Association of Disability Representatives, I strongly encourage you to pass legislation that allows for the provision of two-party SSD or SSI checks made out to both the claimant as well as the attorney or non-attorney representative. Since the introduction of the 6.3% user fee, withholding became a considerably less desirable service to us. None of the members of NADR desire to have SSA withhhold our fees for us if witholding means that we both have to wait to get paid, and then have a 6.3% user fee charged. Most of our clients are honest and will gladly pay for courteous professional service..

I successfully collect my fees 95% of the time. Therefore, if I was given the same opportunity to have withholding; the user fee would have to be less than 5% to make it worthwhile. I don’t have any knowledge about how SSA computed that they needed 6.3% for the work they do. But from a practical point of view, it is more economical not to have SSA withhold fees when the fees exceed the losses one would get without the services.

After having said that I wouldn’t use withholding with the user fees being what they are, I do believe that non-attorney representatives have the right to be included and utilize these government services should they desire. We take pride in the work we do in helping the disabled get the help they need. We do the same type of work as attorneys and look to our government to allow us the same treatment as attorneys.

We believe that a two-party check to the representative for all Social Security disability benefits and SSI would insure the prompt payment of services and would allow for everyone to be assured of representation. Social Security argues against a two party check basically because they don’t trust the lawyers to promptly settle with claimants or would in some way cheat the claimants. This argument doesn’t reflect the reality that all representatives need to be paid as promptly as the claimant’s do. Social Security recently came out with standards of conduct for representatives. We are all very mindful of the power SSA has to discipline anyone who violates his or her responsibilities as representatives. The power that SSA has to regulate the representatives is far greater than what any private insurance company has when one of its policyholders hires counsel in a claim against them. I can imagine the uproar if an insurance company were to try to oppose two-party checks in order to protect their policy- holders from their counsel. SSA’s position in opposing two party checks fails to recognize the fundamental fact that representatives were hired by the claimant because it is SSA that is not trusted to be fair.

I am sure that whatever decisions you make as to user fees for attorneys will be fair. However, fairness demands that consideration also be given to treating the many non-attorneys equitably. We don’t want to blow our own horn but SSA will undoubtedly tell you that we do as well, if not better, than many attorneys do. Yet we are not given the option of having withholding done for us. If withholding for attorneys makes sense, then why not withhold for non-attorneys as well. The government could greatly increase its revenues by giving non-attorneys exactly the same deal that the attorneys are complaining about before your committee. Withholding for non-attorneys and charging a modest user fee might be a method SSA could use to make up for the loss of revenues that will come if the 6.3% is reduced.

Just as some attorneys choose not to use fee withholding and get paid directly by the claimants, some non-attorneys likewise would opt not to use fee withholding and users fees if given the choice. Fairness dictates that we be given the choice. We are only asking for a level playing field. Fairness for all representatives constitutes the right thing to do and would increase government revenues.

On behalf of the National Association of Disability Representatives, I thank you for inviting us to comment on the implementation of this important legislation.