http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0341-3532
![Sample our Health and Social Care journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5938/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Health-Social-Care.jpg"})
Abstract
Purpose: It has been argued that social security disability assessments should directly assess claimants’ work capacity, rather than relying on proxies such as on functioning. However, there is little academic discussion of how such assessments could be conducted.
Method: The article presents an account of different models of direct disability assessments based on case studies of the Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, Norway, the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, utilising over 150 documents and 40 expert interviews.
Results: Three models of direct work disability assessments can be observed: (i) structured assessment, which measures the functional demands of jobs across the national economy and compares these to claimants’ functional capacities; (ii) demonstrated assessment, which looks at claimants’ actual experiences in the labour market and infers a lack of work capacity from the failure of a concerned rehabilitation attempt; and (iii) expert assessment, based on the judgement of skilled professionals.
Conclusions: Direct disability assessment within social security is not just theoretically desirable, but can be implemented in practice. We have shown that there are three distinct ways that this can be done, each with different strengths and weaknesses. Further research is needed to clarify the costs, validity/legitimacy, and consequences of these different models.
It has recently been argued that social security disability assessments should directly assess work capacity rather than simply assessing functioning – but we have no understanding about how this can be done in practice.
Based on case studies of nine countries, we show that direct disability assessment can be implemented, and argue that there are three different ways of doing it.
These are “demonstrated assessment” (using claimants’ experiences in the labour market), “structured assessment” (matching functional requirements to workplace demands), and “expert assessment” (the judgement of skilled professionals).
While it is possible to implement a direct assessment of work capacity for social security benefits, further research is necessary to understand how best to maximise validity, legitimacy, and cost-effectiveness.
Implications for rehabilitation
Note
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to all the interviewees who took part in the project, and to the numerous other experts of different kinds (from civil servants to disability activists) who have discussed these issues with us over the past three years.
Disclosure statement
One of the authors has recently been on secondment in the United Kingdom Department of Work and Pensions, but has no financial interest or other benefit that has arisen from the direct application of this research. The authors report no other potential conflicts of interest.
Notes
1 The Dutch General Administrative Law (AVB) sets out principles of good governance, which require any state decision to be justified and that the reasons must be given with sufficient transparency that an interested party can judge the basis of the decision. However, in a case on CBBS at the Central Appeals Tribunal on 9/11/2004, it was found that a "higher emphasis needs to be placed on reporting and justifying the medical insurance and work study principles underpinning the decision of a particular case" [authors’ translation of 34, section 3.4.2]. By 2006, the Appeals Court had ruled that the resulting changes were largely acceptable, subject to some further minor amendments (see http://rechtennieuws.nl/12342/crvb-blijft-kritisch-over-cbbs-systeem-in-wao-geschillen/ (accessed 31/7/2017).
