Public Insurance Systems: A Comparison of Cause-Based and Disability-Based Income Support Systems

Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines eight disability insurance systems, four cause-based systems, and four disability-based systems, in order to draw attention to the importance of system rules as contextual factors in the return-to-work process affecting people with work disability. Part 1 looks at workers’ compensation, no-fault automobile insurance, crime victims’ compensation and accident compensation, four cause-based systems, and draws on examples from Canada, the United States, Australia, and New Zealand. Part 2 looks at the situation in four European countries, where sickness and disability insurance are available: the Netherlands, Sweden, France, and Italy. This chapter draws attention to regulatory factors that can either promote or hinder return to work, and explains how cause-based systems introduce obstacles that limit the system’s ability to support workers in the return-to-work process because of the need to prove causation of disability to justify interventions. It examines various regulatory incentives for promoting return to work in different jurisdictions and concludes by underlining the importance of considering specific system effects, acknowledging that each system is different and has its own positive and negative effects on the worker and the work environment. These issues will have repercussions both for the design of a study in a given jurisdiction or for the development of a disability prevention practice.

Keywords

Sickness Absence Work Ability Disability Pension Work Disability Compensation System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aiuppa, T., & Trieschmann, J. (1998). Moral hazard in the French workers’ compensation system. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 65(1), 125–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anema, J., Schellart, A., Cassidy, J., Loisel, P., Veerman, T., & Van der Beek, A. (2009). Can cross country differences in return-to-work after chronic occupational back pain be explained? An exploratory analysis on disability policies in a six country cohort study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 19(4), 419–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anema, J. R., Steenstra, I. A., Bongers, P. M., de Vet, H. C., Knol, D. L., Loisel, P., et al. (2007). Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for subacute low back pain: Graded activity or workplace intervention or both? A randomized controlled trial. Spine, 32(3), 291–298.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Armstrong, H., & Laurs, R. (2007). Vocational independence: Outcomes for ACC claimants: A follow up study of 160 claimants who have been deemed vocationally independent by ACC and case law analysis of the vocational independence process (p. 90). Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Labour.Google Scholar
  5. Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC). (2011). A national resource on workers’ compensation. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from http://www.awcbc.org/en/
  6. Benach, J., Muntaner, C., & Santana, V. (2007). Employment conditions and health inequalities. Geneva: World Health Organization Commission on Social Determinants of Health, Employment Conditions Knowledge Network (EMCONET).Google Scholar
  7. Bernhard, D., MacEachen, E., & Lippel, K. (2010). Disability management experts and the impact of jurisdiction on practice: An Ontario example. International Journal of Social Security and Workers Compensation, 2(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
  8. Block, R. N., & Roberts, K. (2000). A comparison of labour standards in the United States and Canada. Industrial Relations, 55(2), 273–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boer, W. E. L. D., & Brenninkmeijer, V. Z. W. (2004). Long-term disability arrangements. A comparative study of assessment and quality control. Hoofddorp: TNO.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, I. (1996). Compensation for personal injury in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Carney, T., & Ramia, G. (2010). Welfare support and ‘Sanctions for non-compliance’ in a recessionary world labour market: Post-neoliberalism or not? International Journal of Social Security and Workers Compensation, 2(1), 29–40.Google Scholar
  12. Ciccarelli, M., & Dender, J. (2010). Contextual factors influencing early return to work in the rural and remote sector. International Journal of Social Security and Workers Compensation, 2(1), 17–28.Google Scholar
  13. Clayton, A. (2003). Some reflections on the Woodhouse and ACC legacy. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 34, 449–463.Google Scholar
  14. Cox, R., & Lippel, K. (2008). Falling through the legal cracks: The pitfalls of using workers’ compensation data as indicators of work-related injuries and illnesses. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 6(2), 9–30.Google Scholar
  15. de Boer, W. E., Bruinvels, D. J., Rijkenberg, A. M., Donceel, P., & Anema, J. R. (2009). Evidence-based guidelines in the evaluation of work disability: An international survey and a comparison of quality of development. BMC Public Health, 18(9), 349–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dew, K., & Taupo, T. (2009). The moral regulation of the workplace: Presenteeism and public health. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31(7), 994–1010. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2009.01169.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Draper, E. (2008). Difficult reputations and the social reality of occupational medicine. New Solutions, 18(3), 299–316. doi: 10.2190/NS.18.3.c.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eakin, J. M. (2005). The discourse of abuse in return to work: A hidden epidemic of suffering. In C. L. Peterson & C. Mayhew (Eds.), Occupational health and safety: International influences and the “New” epidemics (pp. 159–174). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  19. Elsler, D., & Eeckelaert, L. (2010). Factors influencing the transferability of occupational safety and health economic incentive schemes between different countries. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 36(4), 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Erhel, C. (2008). Vocational rehabilitation in France. Mutual learning program. Paper presented at the European Union, Peer Review symposium, Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  21. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2010). Economic incentives to improve occupational safety and health: A review from the European perspective. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work.Google Scholar
  22. Gaskins, R. (2003). The fate of “No-Fault” in America. Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 344, 213–241.Google Scholar
  23. Grant, G., & Studdert, D. (2009). Poisoned chalice? A critical analysis of the evidence linking personal injury compensation processes with adverse health outcomes. Melbourne University Law Review, 33(3), 1–25.Google Scholar
  24. Guidotti, T. L. (2008). Occupational medicine and the construction of “difficult reputations”. New Solutions, 18(3), 285–298. doi: 10.2190/NS.18.3.b.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Guthrie, R. (2002). The dismissal of workers covered by return to work provisions under workers compensation laws. Journal of Industrial Relations, 44(4), 545–561. doi: 10.1111/1472-9296.00064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guthrie, R., Ciccarelli, M., & Babic, A. (2010). Work-related stress in Australia: The effects of legislative interventions and the cost of treatment. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 101–115. doi:doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp. 2009.12.003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Handler, J. F. (2003). Social citizenship and workfare in the US and Europe: From status to contract. Journal of European Social Policy, 13(3), 229–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harcourt, M., Lam, H., & Harcourt, S. (2007). The impact of workers’ compensation experience-rating on discriminatory hiring practices. Journal of Economic Issues, XLI(3), 681–699.Google Scholar
  29. Heymann, J., & Earle, A. (2010). Raising the global floor—Dismantling the myth that we can’t afford good working conditions for everyone. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. International Labour Organization. (2010). List of occupational disease (revised 2010). Identification and recognition of occupational diseases: Criteria for incorporating in the ILO list of occupational diseases. Geneva: ILO.Google Scholar
  31. International Labour Organization. (2011). National labour law profiles. Retrieved November 13, 2011, from http://www.ilo.org/public/english/dialogue/ifpdial/info/national/it.htm-pl
  32. International Social Security Association (ISSA). (2010). Social security programs throughout the world. Europe (SSA Publication No. 13-11801 ed.): International Social Security Association.Google Scholar
  33. Ison, T. G. (1986a). The therapeutic significance of compensation structures. Canadian Bar Review, 64(4), 605–637.Google Scholar
  34. Ison, T. G. (1986b). The significance of experience rating. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 24, 723–742.Google Scholar
  35. Ison, T. G. (1994). Compensation systems for injury and disease: The policy choices. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  36. Ison, T. G. (1998). Workers’ compensation systems. In J. M. Stellman (Ed.), Encyclopedia of occupational health and safety (4th ed.). Geneva: International Labour Office.Google Scholar
  37. Jones, C. A., Burström, B., Marttila, A., Canvin, K., & Whitehead, M. (2006). Studying social policy and resilience to adversity in different welfare states: Britain and Sweden. International Journal of Health Services, 36(3), 425–442.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Karmen, A. (2004). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  39. Kirsh, B., Slack, T., & King, C. (2012). The nature and impact of stigma towards injured workers. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22(2), 143–154. doi: 10.1007/s10926-011-9335-z.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kosny, A., MacEachen, E., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2011). The role of health care providers in long term and complicated workers’ compensation claims. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(4), 582–590. doi:DOI 10.1007/s10926-011-9307-3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lacerte, M., Forcier, P., & Hall, M. (2004). Independent medical examinations for insurance and legal reports (2nd ed.). Markham: LexisNexis Canada Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Laflamme, A.-M., & Fantoni-Quinton, S. (2009). L’obligation d’accommodement au Canada et l’obligation française de reclassement: convergences, divergences et impacts sur le maintien en emploi du salarié en état d’incapacité. McGill Journal of Law and Health, 3, 121–136.Google Scholar
  43. Lax, M., & Manetti, F. A. (2001). Access to medical care for individuals with workers’ compensation claims. New Solutions, 11(4), 325–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lax, M. B., Manetti, F. A., & Klein, R. A. (2004). Medical evaluation of work-related illness: Evaluations by a treating occupational medicine specialist and by independent medical examiners compared. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 10, 1–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Leigh, J., Macaskill, P., Kuosma, E., & Mandryk, J. (1999). Global burden of disease and injury due to occupational factors. Epidemiology, 10(5), 626–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lippel, K. (1986). Le droit des accidentes du travail à une indemnité: analyse historique et critique. Montréal: Éditions Thémis.Google Scholar
  47. Lippel, K. (2002). La notion de lésion professionnelle: analyse jurisprudentielle (4e éd. ed.). Cowansville, Québec: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  48. Lippel, K. (2003). The private policing of injured workers in Canada: Legitimate management practices or human rights violations? Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 01(2), 1–21.Google Scholar
  49. Lippel, K. (2007). Workers describe the effect of the workers’ compensation process on their health: A Quebec study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 30(4–5), 427–443.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lippel, K. (2008). ‘L’intervention précoce pour éviter la chronicité’: enjeux juridiques. In Barreau du Québec (Ed.), Développements récents en santé et sécurité du travail (Vol. 284, pp. 137–187). Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais.Google Scholar
  51. Lippel, K. (2010). Le droit comme outil de maintien en emploi: rôle protecteur, rôle destructeur Revue Pistes, 12(1), 21. Retrieved from http://www.pistes.uqam.ca/v12n1/pdf/v12n1a2.pdf, consulted January 5th 2013.
  52. Lippel, K. (2012). Preserving workers’ dignity in workers’ compensation systems: An international perspective. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 55(6), 519–536. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22022.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lippel, K., Doyon, I., Groux, C., Lefebvre, M.-C., & Murray, M. (2000). L’indemnisation des victimes d’actes criminels une analyse jurisprudentielle. Cowansville: Éditions Yvon Blais Inc.Google Scholar
  54. Lippel, K., & Sikka, A. (2010). Access to workers’ compensation benefits and other legal protections for work-related mental health problems: A Canadian overview. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 101(S1), S16–S22.Google Scholar
  55. Loisel, P., Lemaire, J., Poitras, S., Durand, M.-J., Champagne, F., Stock, S., et al. (2002). Cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analysis of a disability prevention model for back pain management: A six year follow up study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59, 807–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Lötters, F. J. B., Foets, M., & Burdorf, A. (2011). Work and health, a blind spot in curative healthcare? A pilot study. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 21(3), 304–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. MacEachen, E., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2007a). A deliberation on ‘hurt versus harm’ logic in early-return-to-work policy. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 5(2), 41–62.Google Scholar
  58. MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., & Ferrier, S. (2007b). Unexpected barriers in return to work: Lessons learned from injured worker peer support groups. Work, 29, 155–164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Ferrier, S., & Chambers, L. (2010). The “toxic dose” of system problems: Why some injured workers don’t return to work as expected. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(3), 349–366. doi: 10.1007/s10926-010-9229-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Ferrier, S., Lippel, K., Neilson, C., Franche, R.-L., et al. (2011). The ‘ability’ paradigm in vocational rehabilitation: challenges in an Ontario injured worker retraining program. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 20(4), 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s10926-011-9329-x.Google Scholar
  61. Macleod, A. D. (2007). Waddell and the deceiving patient—Is it all intentional? ANZ Journal of Surgery, 77(Suppl 1), A50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martimo, K.-P., Verbeek, J., Karppinen, J., Furlan, A. D., Takala, E.-P., Kuijer, P. P. F. M., et al. (2008). Effect of training and lifting equipment for preventing back pain in lifting and handling: Systematic review. British Medical Journal, 336, 429–431. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39463.418380.BE.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Meershoek, A., Krumeich, A., & Vos, R. (2007). Judging without criteria? Sickness certification in Dutch disability schemes. Sociology of Health & Illness, 29(4), 497–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. MISSOC. (2011a). Comparative tables on social protection (France, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden). Retrieved December 6, 2011, from European Commission Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal opportunities http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/social_protection/missoc_tables_en.htm
  65. MISSOC. (2011b). Your social security rights in France, Italy, The Netherlands and Sweden. Brussels: European Commission Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities.Google Scholar
  66. Mustard, C. A., Dickie, C., & Chan, S. (2008). Disability income security benefits for working-age Canadians. Toronto: Institute for Work and Health.Google Scholar
  67. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2003). Transforming disability into ability: Policies to promote work and income security for disabled people. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  68. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2007). Sickness, disability and work: breaking the barriers: Australia, Luxembourg, Spain and the United Kingdom (Vol. 2, p. 178). Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  69. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2008). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers; Denmark, Finland, Ireland and the Netherlands (Vol. 3). Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  70. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2009). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. Sweden: Will the recent reforms make it? Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  71. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010a). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers; Canada: Opportunities for collaboration. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  72. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2010b). Sickness, disability and work: Breaking the barriers. A synthesis of findings across OECD countries. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  73. Parsons, C. (2002). Liability rules, compensation systems and safety at work in Europe. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, 27(3), 358–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Pennings, F. (2002). Dutch social security law in an international context. Amsterdam: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  75. Perreault, J. (2011). Assurance automobile au Québec—L’indemnisation du préjudice corporel des victimes d’accident d’automobile, 3e édition. Brossard, QC: CCH.Google Scholar
  76. PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2008). Accident compensation corporation New Zealand Scheme Review (p. 48). New Zealand: PricewaterhouseCoopers.Google Scholar
  77. Purse, K., Meredith, F., & Guthrie, R. (2007). Neoliberalism, workers’ compensation and the productivity commission. Journal of Australian Political Economy, 54, 45–66.Google Scholar
  78. Roberts-Yates, D. C. (2006). Employers’ perceptions of claims/injury management and rehabilitation in South Australia. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 44(1), 102–122. doi: 10.1177/1038411106058705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Safe Work Australia. (2011). Comparison of workers’ compensation arrangements in Australia and New Zealand. Canberra: Safe Work Australia. http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/about/publications/pages/comparison2011, consulted January 5th 2013.Google Scholar
  80. Santana, V., Loomis, D., Newman, B., & Harlow, S. (1997). Informal jobs: Another occupational hazard for Women’s Mental Health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(6), 1236–1242.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Schnall, P. L., Dobson, M., & Rosskam, E. (Eds.). (2009). Unhealthy work—Causes, consequences, cures. Amityville: Baywood Publishing Company, Inc.Google Scholar
  82. Shiels, C., & Gabbay, M. B. (2007). Patient, clinician, and general practice factors in long-term certified sickness. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 35(3), 250–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Söderberg, E., & Alexanderson, K. (2005). Sickness certificates as a basis for decisions regarding entitlement to sickness insurance benefits. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 33(4), 314–320.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Soklaridis, S., Ammendolia, C., & Cassidy, J. D. (2010). Looking upstream to understand low back pain and return to work: Psychosocial factors as the product of system issues. Social Science & Medicine, 71(9), 1557–1566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Soldatic, K., & Chapmen, A. (2010). Surviving the assault? The Australian Disability Movement and the Neoliberal Workfare State. Social Movement Studies, 9(2), 139–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Sonsbeek, J. M. V., & Gradus, R. (2011). Estimating the effects of recent disability reforms in The Netherland. Tinbergen institute discussion paper: TI 2011 – 121/3, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration. VU-University Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  87. Spearing, N., & Connelly, L. B. (2011). Is injury compensation “bad for health”? A systematic meta-review. Injury, 42(1), 15–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Stahl, C., Svensson, T., Petersson, G., & Ekberg, K. (2011). Swedish rehabilitation professionals’ perspectives on work ability assessments in a changing sickness insurance system. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(15–16), 1373–1382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Sugarman, S. D. (1998). Quebec’s comprehensive auto no-fault scheme and the failure of any of the United States to follow. Cahiers de Droit, 39(2–3), 303–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sullivan, M. J. L., Adams, H., Horan, S., Maher, D., Boland, D., & Gross, R. (2008). The role of perceived injustice in the experience of chronic pain and disability: Scale development and validation. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 18(3), 249–261.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Thébaud-Mony, A. (2007). Travailler peut nuire gravement à votre santé. Paris: La Découverte.Google Scholar
  92. Vogel, L. (2011). Women and occupational diseases. The case of Belgium (p. 68). Brussels: European Trade Union Institute (ETUI).Google Scholar
  93. Vosko, L. F. (2010). Managing the margins—Gender, citizenship, and the international regulation of precarious employment. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Workers’ Compensation Research Group. (2011). Retrieved December 19, 2011, from http://www.wcrinet.org
  95. Wozowczyk, M., & Massarelli, N. (2011). Population and Social conditions: Labour Force Survey, Annual results 2010. Eurostat, statistics in focus, issue number 30/2011.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law, Civil Law SectionOttawaCanada
  2. 2.Institute of Health Policy and Management, Department Health EconomicsErasmus UniversityRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations