Our economy needs skilled and able workers
to deliver the goods and services we need locally and provide
internationally. When a worker becomes
disabled through work injury or other cause, there is one less member of the
working age population capable of and able to participate in the labour
force.
At any given time, there are workers off
work because of a work-related injury, illness or occupational disease; other
workers are out of the labor force due to non-work related causes. Whether the cause is work-related or not, in
most cases, disabling conditions resolve to the point where a worker is again
able to return to work. The remaining
individual must live with an impairment that may be a significant barrier to
continuing in the labor force. This is
not just an issue of an individual and his or her family having to bear
physical and mental suffering, society losses the skills, knowledge and
abilities of a proven human resource—something that can impact local
communities and national economy.
For worker covered by workers’ compensation,
work-related financial impacts can be offset in part by temporary and permanent
income compensation. For all workers,
there may be access to other social insurance programs such as US Social
Security – Disability benefits and Canada Pension Plan – Disability benefits.
In the US, Social Security Disability (SS-D)
benefits are available to workers who become disabled. Most people who receive disability benefits
are workers. Of the 10,088,739 recipients of SS-D in December
2012, about 87.5% of them were workers.
Nearly $10 billion a month gets paid out to workers who must now depend on
SS-D.
We normally
think of the labor force as being drawn from the resident population aged 18 to
64. Restricting SS-D recipients to that
same age range means there are 9.3 million Americans or 4.7% of the population
aged 18 to 64 were on SS-D in 2012. The
vast majority of these SS-D beneficiaries were workers who are unable to work
and contribute to building a vibrant economy.
That 4.7% is an
average for the whole country. The
distribution of SS-D recipients varies by state. The following table is derived
from the Annual Statistical Report
on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2012 [table 8]:
Number
aged 18–64 as a percentage of the resident population aged 18–64,
by declining percentage by state, December 2012
by declining percentage by state, December 2012
|
Resident population a
|
Beneficiaries
|
|
Number
|
Percentage of resident population
|
||
West Virginia
|
1,159,423
|
104,406
|
9.0
|
Alabama
|
2,998,237
|
250,301
|
8.3
|
Arkansas
|
1,795,660
|
149,632
|
8.3
|
Kentucky
|
2,747,524
|
225,529
|
8.2
|
Mississippi
|
1,835,518
|
144,398
|
7.9
|
Maine
|
836,898
|
63,333
|
7.6
|
Tennessee
|
4,043,720
|
268,443
|
6.6
|
South Carolina
|
2,948,174
|
189,251
|
6.4
|
Missouri
|
3,735,332
|
235,374
|
6.3
|
Michigan
|
6,173,776
|
380,524
|
6.2
|
Louisiana
|
2,888,885
|
173,283
|
6.0
|
Vermont
|
403,616
|
24,198
|
6.0
|
New Hampshire
|
852,075
|
49,925
|
5.9
|
Rhode Island
|
675,189
|
39,715
|
5.9
|
Oklahoma
|
2,343,210
|
135,431
|
5.8
|
North Carolina
|
6,117,676
|
349,592
|
5.7
|
Indiana
|
4,056,709
|
221,264
|
5.5
|
Pennsylvania
|
7,981,289
|
438,294
|
5.5
|
Ohio
|
7,175,429
|
378,923
|
5.3
|
New Mexico
|
1,276,263
|
66,763
|
5.2
|
Delaware
|
571,568
|
28,909
|
5.1
|
Massachusetts
|
4,286,235
|
217,351
|
5.1
|
Florida
|
11,805,373
|
565,421
|
4.8
|
Montana
|
624,872
|
29,767
|
4.8
|
Wisconsin
|
3,584,341
|
173,441
|
4.8
|
United States
|
197,040,596
|
9,306,256
|
4.7
|
Georgia
|
6,290,121
|
295,892
|
4.7
|
Idaho
|
956,497
|
45,118
|
4.7
|
Kansas
|
1,767,332
|
80,876
|
4.6
|
Oregon
|
2,457,110
|
112,691
|
4.6
|
Iowa
|
1,880,928
|
84,657
|
4.5
|
New York
|
12,549,535
|
565,836
|
4.5
|
Virginia
|
5,266,625
|
227,060
|
4.3
|
Washington
|
4,403,628
|
185,482
|
4.2
|
Arizona
|
3,960,828
|
162,630
|
4.1
|
South Dakota
|
507,002
|
20,764
|
4.1
|
Illinois
|
8,116,753
|
321,189
|
4.0
|
Minnesota
|
3,373,224
|
135,566
|
4.0
|
Nebraska
|
1,134,766
|
45,737
|
4.0
|
Connecticut
|
2,264,077
|
89,371
|
3.9
|
New Jersey
|
5,587,651
|
215,599
|
3.9
|
Texas
|
16,234,269
|
610,238
|
3.8
|
Wyoming
|
365,414
|
13,556
|
3.7
|
Maryland
|
3,777,744
|
135,798
|
3.6
|
Nevada
|
1,734,434
|
62,961
|
3.6
|
North Dakota
|
444,354
|
15,680
|
3.5
|
District of Columbia
|
450,954
|
15,374
|
3.4
|
Colorado
|
3,342,983
|
108,554
|
3.2
|
California
|
24,201,126
|
762,133
|
3.1
|
Utah
|
1,695,896
|
50,916
|
3.0
|
Alaska
|
481,852
|
13,848
|
2.9
|
Hawaii
|
878,501
|
25,262
|
2.9
|
|
|
|
[Footnote to original table] SOURCES: Social Security Administration,
Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data; Census Bureau, 2012 resident
population.
NOTE: Data exclude U.S. territories
and other areas
Population estimates for the United
States as of July 1, 2012, as reported by the Census Bureau.
The profile of the average
worker on SS-D in 2012 was a male (53%) average age was 53 receiving an average
monthly benefit of $1,134.86.
Not everyone on SS-D is there permanently, although many are. You may have the image of a worker on SS-D as
having catastrophic and permanent physical impairments. Some recipients have disabilities that could
be described that way but a third of them have a primary disability related to
mental disorders. Another 30% have a
primary diagnosis related to “muskulo-skeletal and connective tissue”. Some are expected to get better or for their
medical disability to improve and allow a return to work; about 70,000 workers
terminated their SS-D benefits for these reasons in 2012 [table 50 in the 2012 Annual Statistical Report]
Preventing injury that leads to permanent disability remains the
number one priority but more needs to be done to prevent workers who develop or
incur impairments from becoming permanently disabled. Disability is largely a societal issue; the
lack of accommodation, failure to foster resiliency and the inability (or
resolve) to overcome systemic barriers are perhaps greater contributors to the
mounting human and economic costs.
I don’t know all the reasons for the wide disparity in SS-D
recipient rates across states. Why, for example, does Virginia have an SS-D worker recipient rate that is less than half that of West Virginia? No doubt
some of the variation can be accounted for by the demographics of the state
population. Perhaps some states are more
proactive in prevention and accommodation thus obviating the need for income
support for SS-D. If you have the
answer, share it! Post a comment or send
me an email.
No comments:
Post a Comment