Jody Schimmel Hyde of the Mathematica Center for Studying Disability Policy has issued a report on the prelevance of obesity among applicants for Social Security disability benefits. Not surprisingly, the study shows an increasing rate of obesity among Social Security disability applicants. I say not surprisingly because the incidence of obesity in the population in general has been increasing.
The interrelationship between obesity and disability is complex. Take a construction worker who becomes disabled by orthopaedic problems. It's a near certainty that he or she will gain weight, probably a fair amount of weight. This happens because he or she will probably continue to eat about the same amount of food even though he or she is no longer nearly as active. It may also happen because he or she is trying to deal with a good deal of stress because of the sudden change in their life and financial problems. Stress often leads to weight gain.
Hyde makes the suggestion that people shouldn't be found disabled if obesity is a material factor in causing their disability. That would be a great way of institutionalizing prejudice against the disabled.
20 comments:
First they took away the obesity listing.....
This is amazing.....
The denial toolbox is expanding.
Lets put the blame on the disabled
I understand the policy behind the addiction (DA and A) rules
I dont agree with it but i understand it
but where does it end
whats next bad genes ?
people work and pay into the system
and then the government doesnt follow its own rules
the treating physician rule doesnt even exist any more
Three guesses on how to reduce the impact of obesity as a contributing factor concerning disability.
There are numerous medical conditions and treatments which contribute significantly to obesity. Orthopedic and neurological conditions that are exacerbated by exercise can prevent weight loss. Mental conditions can attack the mental faculties and motivation to the extent of sabotaging compliance with exercise and diet regimens. Cardiac and pulmonary conditions can reduce exercise capacity. There are many digestive disorders that cause weight gain. Medications can cause weight gain. I could probably fill pages with lists of examples.
Look at the studies on the percentage of people who are able to, on a sustained basis, lose weight and keep it off even when trying to follow various diet and exercise plans. It's quite low even for people without disabilities. Add additional challenges like poverty and disability and its worse.
ANYONE who suggests cutting benefits for people due to obesity is either displaying remarkable ignorance of the facts, or they just don't give a damn if people who vitally need disability benefits are cut off even though there is often nothing they can realistically to do to change the fact that they cannot work.
The article should spark outrage in the disability community and protest against the author and Mathematica.
@10:39AM
AMEN! I could not agree more, or state it any better.
Ms. Hyde says several things in her article that are troubling. I would put them all under the general rubric of an agenda posing as social science.
For one, she refers to “policy makers attempting to limit allowances for people who are obese.” Is this a strawman or are there actually policy makers with this agenda?
The author says: “Although our results cannot prove that rising obesity rates caused higher application rates, they are certainly consistent with that hypothesis.” Many other things are consistent with rising obesity rates and rising disability applications, but in the absence of data, it’s all speculation and social scientists should not speculate, lest someone think Ms. Hyde’s ramblings are the product of social science.
The author says: “DAA and obesity both involve some level of personal control for many applicants.” Where’s the data on that? It’s not in this paper. Some people who go skiing and have an accident, break their backs, and end up on disability. They made a lifestyle/personal control choice. No one is picking on them. Sounds to me, like people with DAA issues, people with obesity are also stigmatized and therefore fair targets.
Lastly, the author refers to the relatively unknown relationship between obesity and disability, the numerous impairments that impact obesity, disability, etc., and yet she suggests the DDSs can cut through all those unknowns and uncertainty and determine if the person can work above SGA if they lost weight, as they are required to do with DAA. That’s a leap of faith, not social science. With all the caveats the author identifies as to why treating obesity like DAA is a bad policy recommendation, it’s there anyway.
Even if there is a correlation between disability and obesity, it doesn't mean that one caused the other. Certainly, they do impact each other. However, since obesity has been increasing for decades, it makes much more sense to examine the food supply.
I would agree with the above commenters. The obesity issue definitely stems from a prejudice against people on disability and particularly with respect fat-shaming people on disability. I cannot tell you how many times I've heard inappropriate comments made off-record by SSA staff and even ALJs that someone cannot get disability just because they're fat or how they won't approve a claim just because someone being fat and lazy made them worse...
Of course, when they apply the ruling, that prejudice gets employed in the convenient amnesia of how DDD can prevent exercise, or how type II diabetes can lead to dietary issues, or how thyroid issues can lead to weight gain, or how certain medications for mental disorders cause significant weight gain, let alone certain people just being predisposed to a large body frame. As a commenter said above, the examples can go on and on for pages.
That said, if a change like this goes into effect, it will be an extremely obvious legalization of discrimination that would be ripe for a class-action -- if any firm would be willing to take it on.
In the meantime, I know that the Appeals Council is notoriously inconsistent in remanding on this issue. I've had cases where the obesity was marginal and yet they found it an error. And others were the obesity was a clearly-linked factor in the exacerbation of the combined impairments, yet they denied the request for review with nary a peep. (This is aside from the other arguments present in comments.)
It makes sense that when the Administration cannot apply its own rules effectively, efficiently, or even consistently, that others will see a ripe opportunity to chip away that them.
I'm not for "fat shaming" or denying people just because they are fat. However, being obese is controllable more often than not. The problem is that most people simply don't care to control it. Being overweight is not frowned upon as the majority of Americans are!
Sure, some medical conditions and some treating medications cause weight gain. But just like in the example Charles gave with the construction worker, control in a key element. If he breaks his back and continues to eat the same amount of food sedentary as he did active, he will certainly become obese. This is under his control. Is he depressed - almost definitely. Is anyone force feeding him - no.
Ah, so now people with lupus for decades who have steroids prescribed for years are personally responsible for how desperately hungry it keeps you and how fast and extreme it causes weight gain.
Steroids also causes brittle bones that easily break and hip joints that just die and have to be replaced.
Soon it will be lupus folks fault for easy limb breakage and the death of soft tissue at the hip.
Responsible for brittle bones no - responsible for how much they do or don't eat, yes.
Numerous studies over many years have shown that groups with poverty-level income have higher incidence of obesity. One of the reasons is nutritional ignorance. While those who read this blog and comment on it are probably more highly educated as a whole and about nutrition, this is probably not true for vast numbers of the public. Also, it is interesting to see the newspaper ads by grocery stores--the prices for nutritious fruits, vegetables, and wholesome foods are often higher than the discounts offered for high carbohydrate/high fat content foods. This has led to the stereotype of the fat woman on food stamps.
Obesity for bad nutrition and inability to exercise adequately are so common that I'm actually surprised when I see a new client who is NOT obese.
Wow - way to go with the compassion there . . . No, no one is "force feeding," the disabled construction worked but to state that he just needs to "take control," ignores the complexities of his situation.
Maybe it does maybe it doesn't...without all of the facts who knows? I can only go by what was stated. Facts and assumptions are the real issue here.
I would like SSA to place a surcharge on the employee health benefits of obese SSA workers and their obese families. An informal look around the local office places SSA workplace obesity at about 80%.
This woman has come up with the solution of the obesity problem in this country! Obviously, punitive methods will do the trick. Why stop at the disabled? Why not make it a crime to be obese? Why not deny Social Security retirement benefits to those who exceed the normal BMI? I'm sure we could think of many penalties to impose on the obese. I tired of all those studies about obesity being a complex problem with many factors. I want simple answers. Will Power! It's now or never!
You may actually be on to something
I couldn't agree more. My co-workers would be done!
I love your modest proposal 6:52. Government can and should control what and how much we eat. If you don't like it we'll just take those FICA taxes and you'll get nothing back and like it! Now drop and give me 20!
Body types are definitely a factor. Some people weigh more, just naturally, and when they age, exceed societal norms. A couple of centuries ago, being substantial was a sign of high social standing (because the person could afford to eat well!) Being thin is, in many ways, a fad that started with Twiggy (remember her?) and comes with is own problems, including more osteoporosis leading to broken bones, not to mention looking gaunt. As for health, some people live into their 70s despite being overweight, smoking cigarettes, lack of exercise. And some thin 50-somethings drop dead of heart attacks while jogging (happened to the lawyer who drew my will). Overall health is a complex issue and a knee-jerk "blame the obese person" is unfair and unwarranted.
As an ALJ, I think they should bring the obesity Listing back!!
Post a Comment