[empathy_m]

I think it's worth reading both of the OIG documents on this topic:

- 2015: "Numberholders Age 112 or Older Who Did Not Have a Death Entry on the Numident", audit report A-06-14-34030 ( https://oig.ssa.gov/audit-reports/2015-03-06-audits-and-inve...)

- 2023: "Numberholders Age 100 or Older Who Did Not Have Death Information on the Numident", audit report A-06-21-51022 ( https://www.oversight.gov/reports/audit/numberholders-age-10... )

It was interesting to see that in the 2015 audit, a total of 13 people were found to have received Social Security benefits despite being older than the oldest known human.

It was also interesting to see that in the 2023 audit the costs questioned ended up being $0, i.e. there was less evidence of misdirected money, though in OIG's opinion strong evidence of an opportunity for fraud in other ways.

I think I understand why SSA might be reluctant to accept recommendations to bulk disable the SSNs of people who seem to be very old. If they get it wrong and a legitimate beneficiary had their benefits cut off because somebody typed in their birthday wrong, this could lead to bad press and a frustrating experience with Congressional constituent services.

Seems to me that it would be a perfectly reasonable policy choice to order SSA to implement the OIG's recommendations and take a more forceful approach to shutting down old SSNs. The odd thing here is that instead of doing that in 2025, the inspectors general were all laid off, and their recommendations about fraud are being gradually rediscovered from first principles, but without any of the institutional understanding of where the bad data come from and how to fix them.

Just an odd and wasteful policy choice.