Take a look at this academic study, Beyond Health: Non-Health Risk and the Value of Disability Insurance by Manasi Deshpande of the University of Chicago and Lee M. Lockwood of the University of Virginia, and tell us what you make of it. They are asking the question "Should people who are 'less disabled' but still drawing Social Security disability benefits really be drawing some sort of 'welfare' benefit anyway because they're facing other serious stresses in their lives even if they're not all that disabled?"
My first question on looking at this study is "How did you determine who was less disabled but still drawing Social Security disability benefits?" As best I can tell they answered that question for their purposes with these four questions:
Severity (PSID)
(1) Do you have any physical or nervous condition that limits the type of work or the amount of work you can do?
- Yes
- No
- Can do nothing
(2) For work you can do, how much does it limit the amount of work you can do { a lot, somewhat, or just a little?
- A lot
- Somewhat
- Just a little
- Not at all
More-severe if \Yes" in (1) and \A lot" in (2), or \Can do nothing" in (1) Less-severe otherwise
Severity (SIPP)
(1) Does ... have a physical, mental, or other health condition that limits the kind or amount of work ... can do at a job or business?
- Yes
- No
(2) Does ... health or condition prevent ... from working at a job or business?
- Yes
- No
More-severe if \Yes" in both (1) and (2)
I find it amazing that two academics would premise a 101 page study on a base as inadequate as this. Disability determination is a hard, perhaps impossible, task. Determining degrees of disability based upon four question is laughable. These authors know a lot about statistics and other abstruse stuff but pretty much zip about disability determination.
I think the basic, unstated premise of this study is the assumption that many people drawing Social Security disability benefits aren't really that disabled. Exploring whether this assumption is a myth might be a better starting point for research that these authors had.
4 comments:
The questions alone reveal a lot, these academics have never done a perception review of disability applicants, let alone those who were approved.
Being able to reduce a severity finding solely based on a few subjective statements from the participant is asinine and unreliable. It boggles the mind that one of the scholars is from the esteemed University of Chicago ECONOMICS department, not school of public health or medical school.
Truly a garbage paper that deserves no weight at all.
11:51 AM. There was a lot of things I could do, BEFORE I applied for disability. You can overcome disabling conditions for years... until you can't. Maybe you could still overcome them, if other conditions hadn't increased. The concept of the straw that broke the camel's back clearly applies. As for the study, some of what they are complaining about is the grids. Yes, there are disabled people being denied and much less disabled people being approved...because of the grid rules. Blame Congress for that, not SSA! The study SEEMS to be against the SSDI/SSI program and refers to them as basically welfare... But, then they seem to be advocating for increased Unemployment Insurance and/or minimum income as an alternative. All while acknowledging the need for further study. Maybe, THAT'S the point of the study?
The University of Chicago economics department is THE Pro-Libertarian, Anti-Gov't think tank. The fact that someone from there is saying "even if we accept the rightwing accusation that a good number of people are receiving government disability benefits that may not actually qualify them, the money spent on the program is actually a NET POSITIVE for society and worth keeping is an astonishing event.
For a recent book debunking the arguments that disability standard is insufficiently strict relative to disability standards in other developed western countries, or that fraud or claimant-favorable bias or error permeate the system, or that the 21st century U.S. labor market is more accommodating of persons with the mix of medical and vocational challenges characteristic of most SSD/SSID claimants than in previous periods, see Dubin, Social Security Disability Law and The American Labor Market (2021), https://nyupress.org/9781479811014/social-security-disability-law-and-the-american-labor-market/
Post a Comment