Follow-up regimes for sick-listed employees: A comparison of nine north-western European countries.
European countries
comparative study
sick-pay
sickness absenteeism
sickness benefit
Journal
Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
ISSN: 1872-6054
Titre abrégé: Health Policy
Pays: Ireland
ID NLM: 8409431
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
07 2022
07 2022
Historique:
received:
16
03
2021
revised:
02
03
2022
accepted:
07
05
2022
pubmed:
17
5
2022
medline:
22
6
2022
entrez:
16
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed the importance of social protection systems, including income security, when health problems arise. The aims of this study are to compare the follow-up regimes for sick-listed employees across nine European countries, and to conduct a qualitative assessment of the differences with respect to burden and responsibility sharing between the social protection system, employers and employees. The tendency highlighted is that countries with shorter employer periods of sick-pay typically have stricter follow-up responsibility for employers because, in practice, they become gatekeepers of the public sickness benefit scheme. In Germany and the UK, employers have few requirements for follow-up compared with the Nordic countries because they bear most of the costs of sickness absence themselves. The same applies in Iceland, where employers carry most of the costs and have no obligation to follow up sick-listed employees. The situation in the Netherlands is paradoxical: employers have strict obligations in the follow-up regime even though they cover all the costs of the sick-leave themselves. During the pandemic, the majority of countries have adjusted their sick-pay system and increased coverage to reduce the risk of spreading Covid-19 because employees are going to work sick or when they should self-quarantine, except for the Netherlands and Belgium, which considered that the current schemes were already sufficient to reduce that risk.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35577620
pii: S0168-8510(22)00104-X
doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2022.05.002
pmc: PMC9085445
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
619-631Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2011 Dec;73(11):1608-17
pubmed: 22014419
Eur J Public Health. 2014 Aug;24(4):663-6
pubmed: 24919693
J Occup Rehabil. 2009 Dec;19(4):419-26
pubmed: 19760488
Int J Health Serv. 2010;40(1):1-22
pubmed: 20198801
Int J Health Serv. 2012;42(2):235-55
pubmed: 22611653
Qual Health Res. 2007 Oct;17(8):1103-16
pubmed: 17928482
Occup Environ Med. 2004 Oct;61(10):867-9
pubmed: 15377774
Eur J Health Econ. 2016 Jul;17(6):693-709
pubmed: 26280132
J Econ Perspect. ;29(2):151-72
pubmed: 28443648
Br J Ind Med. 1986 Aug;43(8):529-36
pubmed: 3730302