Disability Insurance (disability + insurance)

Distribution by Scientific Domains


Selected Abstracts


Understanding the Role of Genetics in Disability Insurance

THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 2007
Jeffrey P. Kahn
No abstract is available for this article. [source]


Genetic Testing and the Future of Disability Insurance: Ethics, Law & Policy

THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 2007
Susan M. Wolf
Predictive genetic testing poses fundamental questions for disability insurance, a crucial resource funding basic needs when disability prevents income from work. This article, from an NIH-funded project, presents the first indepth analysis of the challenging issues: Should disability insurers be permitted to consider genetics and exclude predicted disability? May disabilities with a recognized genetic basis be excluded from coverage as pre-existing conditions? How can we assure that private insurers writing individual and group policies, employers, and public insurers deal competently and appropriately with genetic testing? [source]


Genetic Testing and Disability Insurance: An Alternative Opinion

THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 2007
John H. Dodge
As members of the Working Group on Genetic Testing in Disability Insurance, the authors of this alternative opinion describe their areas of disagreement with some of the conclusions in the paper written by Susan M. Wolf and Jeffrey P. Kahn. [source]


Does U.S. federal policy support employment and recovery for people with psychiatric disabilities?,

BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES & THE LAW, Issue 6 2002
Bonnie O'Day Ph.D.
Evidence suggests that a high percentage of people with a psychiatric disability can recover,find meaningful work, develop positive relationships, and participate fully in their communities. Evidence also suggests that work is an essential component of recovery. However, few people with a serious psychiatric disability are actually employed and most of those who are employed work only part-time at barely minimum wages. To assess the impact of federal programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance, vocational rehabilitation, medical insurance, and psychiatric services upon employment, we conducted a qualitative study of 16 employed and 16 unemployed individuals with psychiatric disabilities. All of our participants had disabilities severe enough to qualify them for Social Security Disability benefits. They told us that current federal policies and practices encouraged employment and integration of only a few participants, in a particular stage of their recovery, and placed significant barriers in the employment path of others. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [source]


Disability payments, drug use and representative payees: an analysis of the relationships

ADDICTION, Issue 7 2003
James A. Swartz
ABSTRACT Aims This study attempted to determine: if US federal cash disability payments increase the use of cocaine or opiates among those requalifying for supplemental security income (SSI) disability benefits compared with those who lost benefits; if drug use peaks at the beginning of the month after the receipt of the disability cash disbursement; and if money management by representative payees of requalifying SSI recipients suppresses drug use. Design A multi-site, prospective, 2 year longitudinal design was used with follow-up interviews conducted every 6 months. Urine samples were collected at the final three follow-up interviews. Setting Data were collected in Chicago, IL, Los Angeles, CA, and Seattle, WA, USA. Participants This study used a randomly selected sample of 740 former recipients of SSI who had received disability benefits for drug addiction and alcoholism (DA&A) in 1996, were between the ages of 21 and 59 years, had not received concurrent social security disability insurance and provided testable urine samples and complete self-report data for at least one follow-up interview. Measurements Independent variables included demographics, SSI status at follow-up, representative payee status, drug treatment participation and income. Time of drug testing was operationalized as the first 10 days of the month versus the last 20,21 days based on when the urine sample was collected. The dependent variables were cocaine and opiate use, determined by urinalysis results. Findings Participants were 28% more likely to test positive for cocaine use in the first 10 days of the month than later in the month. This effect was general across all subjects and was not restricted to those receiving SSI benefits. No such effect was found for opiate use. Receiving SSI benefits did not increase cocaine or opiate use generally, nor did having a representative payee suppress use. Conclusions The findings do not support the contentions that federal cash benefits appreciably increase drug use or that representative payees discourage use, at least when use is defined dichotomously. The ,check effect' for cocaine use appears to be general and not confined to those receiving federal cash benefits. The lack of a ,check effect' for opiate use is probably the result of the difference between a relatively steady state of opiate use associated with addiction and a binge pattern of cocaine use triggered by suddenly flush resources. [source]


Genetic Testing and the Future of Disability Insurance: Ethics, Law & Policy

THE JOURNAL OF LAW, MEDICINE & ETHICS, Issue 2007
Susan M. Wolf
Predictive genetic testing poses fundamental questions for disability insurance, a crucial resource funding basic needs when disability prevents income from work. This article, from an NIH-funded project, presents the first indepth analysis of the challenging issues: Should disability insurers be permitted to consider genetics and exclude predicted disability? May disabilities with a recognized genetic basis be excluded from coverage as pre-existing conditions? How can we assure that private insurers writing individual and group policies, employers, and public insurers deal competently and appropriately with genetic testing? [source]


Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance: Are Employers Good Agents for Their Employees?

THE MILBANK QUARTERLY, Issue 1 2000
Pamela B. Peele
Employers in the United States provide many welfare-type benefits, such as life insurance, disability insurance, health insurance, and pensions, to their employees. Employers can be viewed as performing an agency role in purchasing pension, health, and other welfare benefits for their employees. An exploration of their competence in this role as agents for their employees indicates that large employers are very helpful to their employees in this arena. They seem to contribute to individual employees' welfare by providing them with valued services in purchasing health insurance. [source]