5 ms·

It would be interesting to see how they attempt to correct for malingering (or if they do at all).

faeriechangling 3y ago
I have a different take. This article is talking about the rise of those on disability benefits. Parents are incentivised to portray their children as disabled for benefits, and schools are incentivised to do the same for extra funding and lower standards being applied to them. I think most people apply for benefits likely believe they're genuinely sick and disabled, since being on benefits is not a pleasant life by design. Oh yeah, and with rising obesity and paternal/maternal age generally getting later and later I would be unsurprised if there was an increasing rate of actual disability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on...
- LorenPechtel 3y ago
  But the parents/schools get the benefit from things which simply impair, especially things without a definitive test for their existence. A bunch of brain function issues come to mind. I'm sure such things are overdiagnosed, both amongst the poor (for the benefits) and the rich (for the aid in getting into elite colleges.) However, such overdiagnosis will not keep them out of the labor pool.
  - faeriechangling 3y ago
    A person and the people around them being told over and over about how they struggle more than most people and being held to lower standards creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if this occurs in childhood during the key developmental period. The stigma can also have real consequences on employment even if the diagnosis is fictitious.
    - illwrks 3y ago
      I 100% agree. I know someone that works in a school with children that have special education needs. I was talking with them several months ago and they said majority have genuine issues but they suspect some children have just been ruined by their parents. Their opinion was the children are very capable and as able as any normal child but have self-labelled as having 'special needs' because their parents have told them that from a young age. It didn't make sense to me until I then was told that by doing so the parents could claim various benefits, be a stay at home 'carer' etc. Such wasted potential.
livingdisabled 3y ago
It it "malingering" when someone disabled to the degree that they cannot sustain themselves live longer than expected? The article is light on details - and misses a link to the primary source discussed - but emphasizes the degree to which the UK diverges from other countries studied in terms of labor-market participation post-COVID. Missing is any discussion of how the UK's life (and quality-of-life) expectations and rates of disease and disability differ from other countries. The UK has notably high rates of obesity, poor diet, and low rates of physical activity compared to other (non-US) G7 nations. It's also got a National Health System that delivers above-average access to care and pretty good outcomes (but which is struggling with labor and demographic pressures.) Forget malingering, I want to know if the problem here is just that people in the UK are less healthy than in other countries studied, and to what degree this may be offset with better access to care that inflates the share of the population out of the labor market. That might be a prelude to a more honest conversation about society's priorities than a "malingering" framing that blames the disabled.
LorenPechtel 3y ago
It feels to me that what they're saying is that there is a pool of people who are unable to work (the percentage of people being disabled by Covid is a decent percentage of the total prior disability rate) but are currently on unemployment benefits rather than disability benefits because the latter requires a lot of jumping through hoops. Cracking down on "malingering" will drive these people to jump through the hoops for disability rather than actually pushing them into the workforce. We see a related issue in the US--conservative obsession with pushing them into the labor force. Hint: most of those people are either taking care of someone else (and pushing them into the labor force will dump that other person into the state system, costing the state more), or are those who are marginally functional physically but fully there mentally--whose time is much better spent in school learning some sort of knowledge skill rather than minimally productive physical labor.
mistrial9 3y ago
there was a public talk by a (well-paid, sixty'ish) Longshoreman in California today, where the Longshoreman was injured by an electrical shock. The assigned Doctor said "I have made a thorough study of your xrays and I see no problems" .. yet that man had fused-vertebrae from a motorcycle accident previous to employment. The Doctor made no mention of the fused vertebrae until the Longshoreman brought it up. The direct implication is that the Doctor was told that it was a soft-tissue injury privately, and proceeded to begin the path to deny benefits. A problem in these situations is that all sides cheat, in reality. And once the finger pointing starts, the communication is damaged, and real problems are put into buckets along with "malingering"
- anamax 3y ago
  Who should pay the benefits for the motorcycle accident that happened before the guy became a longshoreman?
  - jpsouth 3y ago
    The persons insurance, presumably. The issue seems to be that the doctor didn’t even check the x-ray, otherwise they would have commented on an unmentioned fused vertebrae. I’m not sure how you didn’t gather that from the OP.
    - anamax 3y ago
      My question was motivated by the OP. The longshoreman was arguing for some sort of compensation for an injury from an electric shock. Unless there are relevant symptoms or electric shock is known to have effects on bones, why would the doctor look at x-rays? He probably also didn't look at stool samples or test for TB.
      - serf 3y ago
        well then the problem arises when said doctor says "I thoroughly studied your x-rays".

I have a different take. This article is talking about the rise of those on disability benefits. Parents are incentivised to portray their children as disabled for benefits, and schools are incentivised to do the same for extra funding and lower standards being applied to them. I think most people apply for benefits likely believe they're genuinely sick and disabled, since being on benefits is not a pleasant life by design. Oh yeah, and with rising obesity and paternal/maternal age generally getting later and later I would be unsurprised if there was an increasing rate of actual disability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on...

LorenPechtel 3y ago
But the parents/schools get the benefit from things which simply impair, especially things without a definitive test for their existence. A bunch of brain function issues come to mind. I'm sure such things are overdiagnosed, both amongst the poor (for the benefits) and the rich (for the aid in getting into elite colleges.) However, such overdiagnosis will not keep them out of the labor pool.
- faeriechangling 3y ago
  A person and the people around them being told over and over about how they struggle more than most people and being held to lower standards creates a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if this occurs in childhood during the key developmental period. The stigma can also have real consequences on employment even if the diagnosis is fictitious.
  - illwrks 3y ago
    I 100% agree. I know someone that works in a school with children that have special education needs. I was talking with them several months ago and they said majority have genuine issues but they suspect some children have just been ruined by their parents. Their opinion was the children are very capable and as able as any normal child but have self-labelled as having 'special needs' because their parents have told them that from a young age. It didn't make sense to me until I then was told that by doing so the parents could claim various benefits, be a stay at home 'carer' etc. Such wasted potential.

livingdisabled 3y ago

It it "malingering" when someone disabled to the degree that they cannot sustain themselves live longer than expected? The article is light on details - and misses a link to the primary source discussed - but emphasizes the degree to which the UK diverges from other countries studied in terms of labor-market participation post-COVID. Missing is any discussion of how the UK's life (and quality-of-life) expectations and rates of disease and disability differ from other countries. The UK has notably high rates of obesity, poor diet, and low rates of physical activity compared to other (non-US) G7 nations. It's also got a National Health System that delivers above-average access to care and pretty good outcomes (but which is struggling with labor and demographic pressures.) Forget malingering, I want to know if the problem here is just that people in the UK are less healthy than in other countries studied, and to what degree this may be offset with better access to care that inflates the share of the population out of the labor market. That might be a prelude to a more honest conversation about society's priorities than a "malingering" framing that blames the disabled.

LorenPechtel 3y ago

It feels to me that what they're saying is that there is a pool of people who are unable to work (the percentage of people being disabled by Covid is a decent percentage of the total prior disability rate) but are currently on unemployment benefits rather than disability benefits because the latter requires a lot of jumping through hoops. Cracking down on "malingering" will drive these people to jump through the hoops for disability rather than actually pushing them into the workforce. We see a related issue in the US--conservative obsession with pushing them into the labor force. Hint: most of those people are either taking care of someone else (and pushing them into the labor force will dump that other person into the state system, costing the state more), or are those who are marginally functional physically but fully there mentally--whose time is much better spent in school learning some sort of knowledge skill rather than minimally productive physical labor.

mistrial9 3y ago

there was a public talk by a (well-paid, sixty'ish) Longshoreman in California today, where the Longshoreman was injured by an electrical shock. The assigned Doctor said "I have made a thorough study of your xrays and I see no problems" .. yet that man had fused-vertebrae from a motorcycle accident previous to employment. The Doctor made no mention of the fused vertebrae until the Longshoreman brought it up. The direct implication is that the Doctor was told that it was a soft-tissue injury privately, and proceeded to begin the path to deny benefits. A problem in these situations is that all sides cheat, in reality. And once the finger pointing starts, the communication is damaged, and real problems are put into buckets along with "malingering"

anamax 3y ago
Who should pay the benefits for the motorcycle accident that happened before the guy became a longshoreman?
- jpsouth 3y ago
  The persons insurance, presumably. The issue seems to be that the doctor didn’t even check the x-ray, otherwise they would have commented on an unmentioned fused vertebrae. I’m not sure how you didn’t gather that from the OP.
  - anamax 3y ago
    My question was motivated by the OP. The longshoreman was arguing for some sort of compensation for an injury from an electric shock. Unless there are relevant symptoms or electric shock is known to have effects on bones, why would the doctor look at x-rays? He probably also didn't look at stool samples or test for TB.
    - serf 3y ago
      well then the problem arises when said doctor says "I thoroughly studied your x-rays".