1999
DOI: 10.1016/s0927-5371(99)00014-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An empirical analysis of the social security disability application, appeal, and award process

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
66
0
2

Year Published

2004
2004
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 95 publications
(73 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
3
66
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Other work has measured the health and demographic characteristics that are associated with disability program application, appeals and awards. See, for example, Lahiri et al (1995), Benitez-Silva et al (1999) and Kreider and Riphahn (1999). Bound (1989) and Chen and van der Klaauw (2008) both use survey data to compare the health and economic behavior of rejected and accepted DI applicants.…”
Section: Institutional Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other work has measured the health and demographic characteristics that are associated with disability program application, appeals and awards. See, for example, Lahiri et al (1995), Benitez-Silva et al (1999) and Kreider and Riphahn (1999). Bound (1989) and Chen and van der Klaauw (2008) both use survey data to compare the health and economic behavior of rejected and accepted DI applicants.…”
Section: Institutional Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, monthly SSI benefits are significantly lower, averaging only $455 per month in 2006. Notice, however, that as of December of 2006, over 1.2 million Americans were receiving both OASDI Disability benefits and SSI, indicating that a non-trivial 8 We refer the reader to the work of Stapleton et al (1994), Lahiri et al (1995), Benítez-Silva et al (1999, 2004, Bound and Berkhauser (1999), and Haveman and Wolfe (2000) provide careful descriptions and analysis of these programs. 9 The SGA for nonblind persons is $980 a month, and it is $1,640 a month for the blind.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several authors pointed out that there is not evidence of systematic errors in respondent answers. They sustain that self-reported measures are a trustworthy indicator of health status, and may be considered as a first approximation to true disability status (Nagi [23], Stern [24], Dwyer and Mitchell [25], Benítez-Silva et al [26]). This result is strengthened by the confidentiality of the responses, because individuals do not have incentives to missreport in order to increase the probability of receiving any kind of SS benefit.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%