The reconsideration stage of disability appeals is regarded by many Social Security disability advocates as a frustrating waste of time, adding several months to an appeal and providing little more than a “rubber stamp” on the initial denial. Recently, new legislation was introduced to allow claimants to bypass reconsideration and proceed directly to a hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ).
Reconsideration is a desk review conducted by state Disability Determination Services (DDS), and under current regulations, individuals whose disability claims are denied at the initial level generally must request reconsideration before they can obtain an ALJ hearing. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.907, 404.929, 416.1407, 416.1429. The recent bill, introduced in April 2026 and titled the Respecting Every Claimant’s Appeal Options Now (RECON) Act (H.R. 8478) would amend the Social Security Act (the Act) to provide that the Commissioner “may not require reconsideration of the initial decision or determination prior to the hearing,” in effect making the reconsideration stage optional. Although the bill refers generally to the “initial decisions or determinations,” the bill’s sponsors have presented the legislation as aimed at addressing disability appeals, and streamlining the process for appealing an initial denial.
A fact sheet published by NOSSCR in support of the RECON Act noted that reconsideration currently adds an average of eight months to the processing time of an appeal. SSA data shows that claimants are successful at reconsideration only 16% of the time. But at the ALJ level, the allowance rate jumps to 50% – a gap that underscores the importance of fuller evidentiary development and meaningful review at the hearing level. Requiring reconsideration also increases the risk that claimants with meritorious appeals will abandon their cases along the way, particularly after missing a deadline to appeal a reconsideration denial. Those claimants frequently end up filing new applications, further delaying their access to benefits and creating administrative “churn” that burdens both claimants and SSA staff.
From 1999 through 2019, SSA tested the elimination of reconsideration in a group of “prototype” states, including New York. 64 Fed. Reg. 47,218. During that period, claimants in those states could appeal directly from an initial denial to an ALJ hearing. SSA ended the prototype and reinstated reconsideration nationwide in 2019 without publishing research or data supporting that decision. The change was discussed in the January 2019 issue of Disability Law News.
Advocates complained about the return of reconsideration. In written testimony submitted to the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Social Security in 2023, Disability Advocacy Program (DAP) advocates and others urged policymakers to eliminate reconsideration and redirect resources to earlier stages of adjudication. They emphasized that approval rates at reconsideration remain significantly lower than at the hearing level and that the additional step can contribute to delay and attrition in the appeals process.
SSA’s published data for the average disability reconsideration processing time shows that since the agency ended the prototype and reinstated reconsideration nationwide, processing times have nearly doubled: rising from 108.5 days in FY 2019 to 213.1 days in FY 2023. A broader report by the SSA’s Office of the Inspector General published in July 2025 found that, from FY 2019 through FY 2023, overall DDS processing times increased by 81%, as DDSs lost key technical staff and completed fewer determinations.
The RECON Act would not eliminate reconsideration entirely. Instead, claimants could still elect reconsideration, but would also have the option to proceed directly to an ALJ hearing. For advocates, the bill would raise strategic questions about when reconsideration may still be useful. In some cases where new medical evidence is available quickly or a clear error can be corrected at DDS, reconsideration may still be worth pursuing. In most cases, however, proceeding directly to a hearing may better serve the claimant.
The RECON Act reflects a narrower approach than prior proposals to eliminate reconsideration altogether. Supporters have emphasized that it could reduce delays for many claimants by allowing them to avoid an additional layer of review, while preserving reconsideration as an option in cases where more development at the DDS level may be beneficial. The proposal also represents an opportunity to streamline the appeals process without altering the basic structure of Social Security appeals.
Although the RECON Act would address reconsideration through legislation, it is worth noting that the reconsideration stage was never mandated by the Act, and legislation is not the only possible avenue for reconsideration reform. Reconsideration was originally created by regulation, which means SSA could also modify or eliminate the step through regulatory action. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.900(a), 404.907, 416.1400(a), 416.1407 (establishing reconsideration as the first step in SSA’s administrative review process before an ALJ hearing); 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.906, 416.1406 (authorizing SSA to test modifications to disability determination procedures); Social Security Act §§ 205(b), 1631( c )(1), 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(b), 1383( c )(1) (providing for reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing, but not expressly requiring a separate reconsideration step); Modifications to the Disability Determination Procedures; Disability Claims Process Redesign Prototype, 64 Fed. Reg. 47,218 (Aug. 30, 1999) (announcing prototype modifications that included elimination of reconsideration in certain states); see also Will Morton, Congressional Research Service, Examining Changes to Social Security’s Disability Appeals Process (July 25, 2018)(discussing the prototype, and describing reconsideration as part of SSA’s administrative appeals process).
The bill remains in the early stages of the legislative process. As of mid-June 2026, the RECON Act has been introduced and referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. While enactment may be unlikely in the current legislative environment, the proposal is still significant in keeping reconsideration reform on the agenda.
