Articles from prior issues of The Advocate

September/October, 1999

Resolutions Committee Speaks To 301 Provisions
by Susan Neitzert, Resolutions Committee Chair

The Resolutions Committee had considered and forwarded a resolution to the Board. We have since rewritten it per the Board's request to clarify various points. We are now recommending that this resolution be approved for presentation at the Delegate Assembly of the 1999 NADE National Conference.

The resolutions read as follows:

Whereas, the 301 Provisions are an important component of the return to work initiatives for disability recipients; and

Whereas, effective vocational rehabilitation increases the chance that beneficiaries will return to the work force; and

Whereas, approved Rehabilitation Plans under the 301 Provisions include only plans where the claimant would be able to work in sedentary occupations: and

Whereas the 301 provisions in the code of federal regulations do not specifically require a sedentary vocational program; and

Whereas, there has not been any recent training for disability and rehabilitation employees regarding current 301 provisions;

Therefore, be it resolved that NADE ask the Social Security Administration (SSA) to provide training to disability and rehabilitation professionals concerning CURRENT 301 provisions; and

Be it further resolved that NADE provide SSA with a position paper recommending changes in the 301 Provisions that would allow more disability recipients to be included under approved 301 training plans, provided with vocational training and returned to the work force.

There is also an opportunity for discussion for two other concerns brought up to the committee but not in the form of resolutions. I would recommend that NADE members consider these issues and start discussing these issues as possible areas the Board may want to consider taking action on in the future. The first one addresses the need for POMS instructions for DDS to notify SSA if a claimant is in a state Institution. It was also stated that the DDS should be included in the program that awards the States monetarily for informing SSA that a claimant is in a State Institution. In return, these rewards could be use by the DDS to promote better Claims Adjudication.

The other concern is that the disability program may be giving undue emphasis to functional limitations. It was stated there needs to be a balance between the severity of objective abnormality and subjective complaints. It was also stated that depending on the disabling impairment that one type of claim may have an advantage over another due to the impact of functional limitations and how they are weighed. For instance, the cardiovascular impairments are much more weighted on objective evidence than some other impairments.