Follow this blog:
RSS

Roadblock for researchers: Social Security death record limits

By | October 14, 2012, 4:55 PM PDT

Last year, the Social Security Administration boosted its efforts to protect against identity theft by limiting access to its death records.

An unintended consequence? Delays in research ranging from the financial industry to health care — some of which are, ironically, aimed at protecting consumers from other kinds of fraud.

The New York Times reports that while researchers are trying to raise awareness of their problems and put pressure on Social Security to increase access, Congress is actually looking to further limit access to increase identity protections.

The Social Security Death Master File

This is not a fictional name. The Social Security Death Master File indexes 90 million deaths reported to the agency over 75 years, and it includes names, Social Security numbers and dates of death.

Though it’s not 100% accurate, it is updated weekly, making it the most current record of deaths across the country. Another reason it is prized by researchers is that it is much less expensive than a similar record kept by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which is more complete but 14 to 18 months out of date.

For the last decade, the master file included state records. But last year, after reports that identity thieves were utilizing these records, the Social Security Administration decided to stop releasing state records in the file.

The Times reports:

As a result, four million deaths were expunged from the publicly available master file last November. Social Security officials expect the number of deaths disclosed each year — 2.8 million were made public in 2010 — to decrease by one million.

Consequences for research

As a result, all kinds of research are being held up. For example:

  • A group looking into organ transplant survival rates must do extra work to see whether patients are still alive. That in turn backs up the federal agency running Medicare, which used the data to determine when programs were performing too poorly to continue to receive government funding.
  • Financial industries such as life insurance, banking and credit services are finding it more difficult to pinpoint identity thieves who steal the deceased’s names and Social Security numbers.

Gary Chase, the senior project manager of Harvard’s Nurses’ Health Study, a 36-year look at the prevalence of cancer among more than 200,000 women, told The Times the new policy had “thrown us back to the pre-Internet era, where you’d start looking in the phone book for someone with a similar name and sending out a bunch of letters.”

Greta Lee Splansky, the director of operations for the Framingham Heart Study, which has, over 60 years, looked at heart disease in three generations from the same time, said, “It just slows us down. It’s wasting research dollars.”

No pity

Mark Hinkle, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, told the Times, “I don’t want to sound offensive, but our job is to administer the Social Security program, and administering a death list really isn’t in our core set of workloads.”

Similarly, Congress is unmoved: Both Representative Sam Johnson, Republican of Texas, and Senator Bill Nelson, Democrat of Florida, has proposed bills to limit (or, in the case of Johnson’s bill, eliminate), the master file.

“The decades-old practice of publishing personal death information that anyone can buy needs to end,” Johnson said, “and now.”

Seems like they should be able to come up with some kind of compromise between making the records entirely public and making them accessible to legitimate researchers working on projects that have a greater good, no?

Related on SmartPlanet:

via: The New York Times

photo: 401(k) 2012/Flickr

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Laura Shin

About Laura Shin

Laura Shin is a contributing editor for SmartPlanet.

Laura Shin

Laura Shin

Contributing Editor

Laura Shin has written for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Los Angeles Times, Audubon and SolveClimate.com. She is currently a senior editor at LearnVest.com. Previously, she worked at Newsweek, the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. She holds degrees from Stanford University and Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism.

Follow her on Twitter.

Laura Shin

Laura Shin

In the unlikely event that Laura has a professional or financial relationship with a company she writes about, it will be prominently disclosed.

She writes for SmartPlanet and is not an employee of CBS.

If you liked this, don't miss...
8
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
+2 Votes
+ -
Duh - It ain't about the master file.
As usual congressional wing-nuts are making cost improvement unduly complicated. Death records are a matter of historical public record - go to any courthouse. The only question is whether the records will be accumulated in a central database that can be more readily accessed and used for several good reasons.
That's just the sort of effort a bipartisan effort should support. But, there is an ulterior motive if you look below the surface - a common death data base could make it more difficult for a congressman's dead constituents to vote for them.
Posted by jblowe
15th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
A congressman's dead constituents
It is called "Posthumous Democracy", also widely practiced in Australia.
Posted by kwickset@...
15th Oct
+3 Votes
+ -
Who should pay for research?
I realize that I am not being politically correct, but I don't believe that the Social Security Administration should be charged with assisting researchers. They have enough to do and besides people should be allowed to die in peace.
Posted by rrwcm@...
15th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
We welcome the politically incorrect
...so long as you back it up!
Posted by andrew.nusca
15th Oct
-1 Votes
+ -
Too many people
No. Eliminate the death files. As long as the record exists and can be used for so-called research, it is/can also be socially manipulated to expand human population. And there are too many of us.
It is time for us as a species, worldwide, to individually participate in reducing our numbers. How is a matter of interpretation, but it must occur. China's one-child-per-couple is a good start -- but only a start but takes too long to halt rapid Climate Change which threatens us all, even if it could ironically result in a sudden, unexpected Ice Age rather than the melting of the poles if the ocean conveyors reverse or collapse.
No. That death files should be eliminated.
Posted by Rudy Haugeneder
15th Oct
+2 Votes
+ -
Okay, I'll bite.
Exactly how can such data "be socially manipulated to expand human population"?

And in case you haven't been paying attention, China's "one child" policy is having devastating social and political implications.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
15th Oct
+1 Vote
+ -
Death Files
It seems to me that publishing the Death Files and making them completely available to all who register credit applications, or process voting records, etc, would eliminate the ruse of registering dead persons as new accounts or voting as a deceased person, or NEW VOTERS! This would make these practices unusable: ALL new (possibly even all OLD) accounts would be checked against this easily accessable list, and if someone were deceased, no NEW accounts, no NEW poll list entries, would be generated! The only drawback I see is that if someone still living were listed as dead (this HAS happened, by the way) he/she couldn't use their accounts! Therefore, safeguards against unauthorized data entry should be extremely stringent!
Posted by mogul264
Updated - 15th Oct
+4 Votes
+ -
The SSA Spokesman Is an Idiot!
I used to work for a pension plan and every year we would purge dozens of pension recipients whose deaths were unreported. And every year we would have to take legal action to recover payments made after death from various parties who "forgot" to report the deaths to us. Multiply our dozens by a thousand (or more) and you can see that overpayments after death should be a major concern for the SSA administration and anybody worried about the financial health of the SSA.
Posted by JakeRader
15th Oct
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!