Disability Benefits as Social Insurance: Tradeoffs between Screening Stringency and Benefit Generosity in Optimal Program Design

T. Waidmann, J. Bound, A. Nichols
{"title":"Disability Benefits as Social Insurance: Tradeoffs between Screening Stringency and Benefit Generosity in Optimal Program Design","authors":"T. Waidmann, J. Bound, A. Nichols","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1090897","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) system is designed to provide income security to workers in the event that health problems prevent them from working. In order to qualify for benefits, applicants must pass a medical screening that is intended to verify that the individual is truly incapable of work. Past research has shown, however, that the screening procedures used do not function without error. If screening were error-free, it has can be demonstrated that it is socially optimal to distinguish the disabled non-worker from the non-disabled, providing benefits to the disabled. In this paper we first demonstrate that if the errors in the medical screening are too large, it will not be optimal to distinguish the disabled from the non-disabled. Then, we use data on the actual quality of screening to determine first, if segmenting the non-working population is desirable, and second whether the current SSDI system relies too heavily on screening than is justified. Our preliminary conclusion is that while screening is good enough to justify some distinction in benefits, it may not be good enough to justify the size of the benefit offered.","PeriodicalId":164882,"journal":{"name":"University of Michigan Retirement Research Center Research Paper Series","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Michigan Retirement Research Center Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1090897","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) system is designed to provide income security to workers in the event that health problems prevent them from working. In order to qualify for benefits, applicants must pass a medical screening that is intended to verify that the individual is truly incapable of work. Past research has shown, however, that the screening procedures used do not function without error. If screening were error-free, it has can be demonstrated that it is socially optimal to distinguish the disabled non-worker from the non-disabled, providing benefits to the disabled. In this paper we first demonstrate that if the errors in the medical screening are too large, it will not be optimal to distinguish the disabled from the non-disabled. Then, we use data on the actual quality of screening to determine first, if segmenting the non-working population is desirable, and second whether the current SSDI system relies too heavily on screening than is justified. Our preliminary conclusion is that while screening is good enough to justify some distinction in benefits, it may not be good enough to justify the size of the benefit offered.
残疾福利作为社会保险:最优方案设计中筛选严格性与福利慷慨性的权衡
社会保障残疾保险制度旨在为因健康问题而无法工作的工人提供收入保障。为了有资格获得福利,申请人必须通过体检,以核实个人确实没有工作能力。然而,过去的研究表明,所使用的筛选程序并不是没有错误的。如果筛选是无差错的,就可以证明将残疾非工人与非残疾人区分开来是社会最优的,为残疾人提供福利。在本文中,我们首先证明了如果医学筛查中的误差过大,那么区分残疾和非残疾将不是最优的。然后,我们使用有关筛查实际质量的数据来确定,首先,分割非工作人口是否可取,其次,当前的SSDI系统是否过于依赖筛查而不合理。我们的初步结论是,虽然筛查足够好,可以证明一些好处的区别,但它可能不足以证明所提供的好处的大小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信