Search

This scoping review identified what kinds of work disability policy issues are critiqued in articles published in countries with cause-based versus comprehensive welfare systems. Drawing on a review of work disability policy research, we identified 74 English-language, peer-reviewed articles that focused on program adequacy and design. Articles on cause-based systems dwelled on system fairness and policies of proof of entitlement, while those on comprehensive systems focused more on system design complexities relating to worker inclusion and scope of medical certificates. Overall, we observed a clear difference in the nature of problems examined in the different systems. Gaps in work disability policy literature are identified, and challenges for comparative policy research are discussed.

This article explores the role of the Social Security Disability Insurance (DI) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) cash benefit programs in providing access to public health insurance coverage among working-aged people with disabilities, using a sample of administrative records spanning 84 months. We find that complex longitudinal interactions between DI and SSI eligibility determine access to and timing of Medicare and Medicaid coverage. SSI plays an important role in providing a pathway to Medicaid coverage for many low-income individuals during the 29-month combined DI and Medicare waiting periods, when Medicare coverage is not available. After Medicare eligibility kicks in, public health insurance coverage is virtually complete among awardees with some DI involvement. Medicaid coverage continues at or above 90 percent after 2 years for SSI-only awardees. Many people who exit SSI retain their Medicaid coverage, but the gap in coverage between stayers and those who leave SSI increases over time.

Background: Assessments of long-term work disability are carried out by social insurance physicians (SIPs) and are little supported with evidence or instruments. Guidelines are hardly ever used in social insurance medicine. Developments in social insurance medicine might be slow as insurance is different from clinical medicine., Aims: We explored the comparability of assessments in social insurance medicine in different countries and asked what guidelines were in official use., Methods: Eighteen European countries were invited. A questionnaire on assessments practices was sent to national experts. A comparative table was presented to all contributors. Countries with guidelines were visited. Guidelines were categorised according to their purpose and their contents were compared. The results were presented to experts of the participating countries for validation., Results: Fourteen countries participated. Functional capacity assessment was common. Guidelines for SIPs were reported to be officially in use in Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Twenty-two guidelines were medical and eleven were procedural. Medical guidelines mainly treated the same topics. Procedural guidelines were more variable., Conclusion: Assessment of work disability is comparable between countries. Medical and procedural guidelines should be further developed and tested on their value in practice. The procedural guidelines need to be published in a clear and comparable manner. The legal security of claimants would be endorsed by this. Germany and the Netherlands are most experienced and could take the lead in international development., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

This article is about Social Security Administration (SSA) policy with regard to the Psychological Consultative Examination (PCE) for Social Security Disability, particularly with respect to validation of the responses and findings. First, the nature of the consultation and the importance of understanding the boundaries and ethics of the psychologist's role are described. Issues particular to working with low-functioning claimants usually form a large part of these examinations. The psychologist must understand various forms of non-credible behavior during the PCE, and how malingering might be considered among other non-credible presentations. Issues pertaining to symptom validity testing in low-functioning claimants are further explored. SSA policy with respect to symptom validity testing is carefully examined, with an attempt to answer specific concerns and show how psychological science can be of assistance, particularly with evidence-based practice. Additionally, the nature and importance of techniques to avoid the mislabeling of claimants as malingerers are examined. SSA requires the use of accepted diagnostic techniques with which to establish impairment, and this article describes the implementation of that requirement, particularly with respect to validating the findings.

Strategies for validating complaints about pain and pain-related disability are considered important in the assessment of persons with chronic pain. Validation strategies should be based on principles of psychological assessment. In order to limit the amount of validating activities in clinical practice core outcome domains for subjects with chronic pain are identified (pain and bodily complaints, coping and treatment, level of physical, psychosocial, and cognitive functioning, working ability). Based on results from research on malingering the recommended validation strategies are multiple intra-individual comparisons of different levels and sources of data, use of reliable and valid tests and questionnaires, consideration of incidental inconsistencies, use of validating scales for response sets of acquiescence, social desirability, or defensiveness and symptom validity testing based on the principle of low item difficulties. The principles of validation are demonstrated exemplarily with respect to the selected outcome domains.

Chronic pain accompanied by disability and handicap is a frequent symptom necessitating medical assessment. Current guidelines for the assessment of malingering suggest discrimination between explanatory demonstration, aggravation and simulation. However, this distinction has not clearly been put into operation and validated. The necessity of assessment strategies based on general principles of psychological assessment and testing is emphasized. Standardized and normalized psychological assessment methods and symptom validation techniques should be used in the assessment of subjects with chronic pain problems. An adaptive procedure for assessing the validity of complaints is suggested to minimize effort and costs.

Background: Decisions on disability pensions are based, among others, on medical reports. The way these medical assessments are performed is largely unclear. The aim of the study was to determine which grounds are used by social insurance physicians (SIPs) in these assessments and to determine if the identification of these grounds can help improve the quality of assessments in social insurance practice. The article describes a focus group study and a questionnaire study with SIPs in four different countries., Method: Using focus group discussions of SIPs discussing the same case in Belgium, the Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia (N = 29) we determined the arguments and underlying grounds as used by the SIP's. We used a questionnaire study among other SIPs (N = 60) in the same countries to establish a first validation of these grounds., Results: Grounds in the focus groups were comparable between the countries studied. The grounds were also recognized by SIPs who had not participated in the focus groups. SIPs agreed most on grounds with regard to the claimant's health condition, and about the claimant's duty to explore rehabilitation and work resumption, but less on accepting permanent incapacity when all options for treatment were exhausted., Conclusion: Grounds that SIPs use refer to a limited group of key elements of disability evaluation. SIPs interpret disability in social insurance according to the handicapped role and strive at making their evaluation fair trials. ICF is relevant with regard to the health condition and to the process of evaluation. Identification of grounds is a valuable instrument for controlling the quality of disability evaluation. The grounds also appear to be internationally comparable which may enhance scientific study in this area.

Presented is the work of the Quality Assurance in Sociomedical Evaluation Project Group and its findings so far. The Project Group has developed a quality assurance concept for the outcome quality of sociomedical evaluations with personal examination and for evaluations on the basis of medical records. The quality criteria proposed by the Project Group are divided into primary as well as particular criteria. The primary criteria are: plausibility and conclusiveness, reproducibility, neutrality; the particular criteria are: formal and content programming, medical-scientific foundations, understandability, completeness, transparency, and efficiency. Both, the primary and the particular criteria are operationalized through examination questions. To fulfill a primary quality criterion, all related examination questions have to be answered in the affirmative. The particular criteria are related using a scoring system. The quality assurance programme also provides for a peer-review procedure; however, the manual for this procedure has yet to be developed. Research projects will be needed to determine the methodological requirements that have to be fulfilled for the proposed peer review procedure. Prior to implementation of the programme with the financially responsible pension insurance agencies it will be necessary to estimate the amount of time and manpower involved.

A study of the psychiatric evaluations of 248 consecutive clients whose cases were in the process of adjudication for approval or renewal of Supplemental Security Income and/or Social Security Disability Income in 1982 and 1983 showed an overrepresentation of individuals with chronic moderate to severe psychiatric impairment. The author suggests that the criteria and guidelines for eligibility for these two programs are too stringent for individuals with psychiatric impairment and that some of these individuals are unable to provide information necessary to build a proper case for disability because of their psychopathology. The implications for psychiatrists, other mental health professionals, and social policy planners are discussed.