What is the effect of changing eligibility criteria for disability benefits on employment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence from OECD countries.


Journal

PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
2020
Historique:
received: 14 07 2020
accepted: 13 11 2020
entrez: 1 12 2020
pubmed: 2 12 2020
medline: 13 1 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Restrictions in the eligibility requirements for disability benefits have been introduced in many countries, on the assumption that this will increase work incentives for people with chronic illness and disabilities. Evidence to support this assumption is unclear, but there is a danger that removal of social protection without increased employment would increase the risk of poverty among disabled people. This paper presents a systematic review of the evidence on the employment effects of changes to eligibility criteria across OECD countries. Systematic review of all empirical studies from OECD countries from 1990 to June 2018 investigating the effect of changes in eligibility requirements and income replacement level of disability benefits on the employment of disabled people. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analysis was performed using meta-regression on all separate results. The systematic review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (Registration code: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018103930). Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria from seven countries. Eight investigated an expansion of eligibility criteria and nine a restriction. There were 36 separate results included from the 17 studies. Fourteen examined an expansion of eligibility; six found significantly reduced employment, eight no significant effect and one increased employment. Twenty-two results examined a restriction in eligibility for benefits; three found significantly increased employment, 18 no significant effect and one reduced employment. Meta-regression of all studies produced a relative risk of employment of 1.06 (95% CI 0.999 to 1.014; I2 77%). There was no firm evidence that changes in eligibility affected employment of disabled people. Restricting eligibility therefore has the potential to lead to a growing number of people out of employment with health problems who are not eligible for adequate social protection, increasing their risk of poverty. Policymakers and researchers need to address the lack of robust evidence for assessing the employment impact of these types of welfare reforms as well as the potential wider poverty impacts.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Restrictions in the eligibility requirements for disability benefits have been introduced in many countries, on the assumption that this will increase work incentives for people with chronic illness and disabilities. Evidence to support this assumption is unclear, but there is a danger that removal of social protection without increased employment would increase the risk of poverty among disabled people. This paper presents a systematic review of the evidence on the employment effects of changes to eligibility criteria across OECD countries.
METHODS
Systematic review of all empirical studies from OECD countries from 1990 to June 2018 investigating the effect of changes in eligibility requirements and income replacement level of disability benefits on the employment of disabled people. Studies were narratively synthesised, and meta-analysis was performed using meta-regression on all separate results. The systematic review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (Registration code: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018103930).
RESULTS
Seventeen studies met inclusion criteria from seven countries. Eight investigated an expansion of eligibility criteria and nine a restriction. There were 36 separate results included from the 17 studies. Fourteen examined an expansion of eligibility; six found significantly reduced employment, eight no significant effect and one increased employment. Twenty-two results examined a restriction in eligibility for benefits; three found significantly increased employment, 18 no significant effect and one reduced employment. Meta-regression of all studies produced a relative risk of employment of 1.06 (95% CI 0.999 to 1.014; I2 77%).
CONCLUSIONS
There was no firm evidence that changes in eligibility affected employment of disabled people. Restricting eligibility therefore has the potential to lead to a growing number of people out of employment with health problems who are not eligible for adequate social protection, increasing their risk of poverty. Policymakers and researchers need to address the lack of robust evidence for assessing the employment impact of these types of welfare reforms as well as the potential wider poverty impacts.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33259544
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242976
pii: PONE-D-20-19352
pmc: PMC7707516
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Meta-Analysis Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e0242976

Subventions

Organisme : CIHR
ID : EWL-14428
Pays : Canada

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Références

J Public Econ. 2011 Oct;95(9-10):1223-1235
pubmed: 21969737
Eur J Public Health. 2012 Jun;22(3):434-9
pubmed: 21816774
J Polit Econ. 1984;92(3):532-49
pubmed: 11617445
J Health Econ. 2018 Nov;62:134-146
pubmed: 30366230
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 Apr;70(4):339-45
pubmed: 26573235
BMC Public Health. 2017 Dec 02;17(1):928
pubmed: 29197367
Am Econ Rev. 2015 May;105(5):177-182
pubmed: 26306049
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019 Aug;73(8):717-722
pubmed: 31036606
JAMA. 1998 Nov 18;280(19):1690-1
pubmed: 9832001
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016 May;70(5):452-8
pubmed: 26646692
Am Econ Rev. ;92(1):27-50
pubmed: 29058388
Int J Health Serv. 2000;30(3):435-51
pubmed: 11109175
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008 Feb 25;8:8
pubmed: 18298827
J Health Econ. 2019 May;65:189-209
pubmed: 31030115
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 04;13:925
pubmed: 24093150
J Health Econ. 2006 Jul;25(4):621-49
pubmed: 16678924
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2010 Dec;64(12):1106-14
pubmed: 20805199
Health Place. 2018 May;51:1-10
pubmed: 29482064

Auteurs

Philip McHale (P)

Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Andy Pennington (A)

Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Cameron Mustard (C)

Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Quenby Mahood (Q)

Institute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Ingelise Andersen (I)

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Natasja Koitzsch Jensen (NK)

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Bo Burström (B)

Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Karsten Thielen (K)

Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Lisa Harber-Aschan (L)

Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Ashley McAllister (A)

Department of Global Public Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Margaret Whitehead (M)

Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Ben Barr (B)

Department of Public Health, Policy and Systems, Institute of Population Health Sciences, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH