SEARCH · Search PubMed
Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
In the United States, low-income families who have a child or children with a disability may be eligible for cash benefits payable under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. In the last few years, the number of these children on the SSI rolls has increased dramatically due, in large part, to new standards developed in response to a 1990 Supreme Court decision and the subsequent retroactive activity as a result of that decision. The rise in the number of child beneficiaries has led to increased concerns as to whether cash benefits are the best way to help these children and their families deal with the additional needs and expenses caused by disabilities. This article begins with a summary of recent American developments regarding the childhood disability issue as background to an exploration of comparative practices. In light of the current interest in the United States concerning children with disabilities, it seems timely to explore the approaches used by other countries' social insurance programs. This study details the practices and provisions of 14 European countries and 4 other developed countries (Australia, Israel, Japan, and New Zealand). In addition to examining the variables involved in making cash benefits available and awarding them to families on behalf of disabled children, the article also provides information on in-kind benefits to which such families would be entitled and gives some insight as to the philosophy and policy goals of selected foreign programs.
Although both DSM-IV and ICD-10 define schizoaffective mixed states, they have not received much attention-neither in the clinical nor in research context. We present preliminary results of a prospective study of bipolar affective (n = 100) and bipolar schizoaffective (n = 177) patients. 25% of the bipolar affective and 32% of the bipolar schizoaffective patients had at least one (schizo)mixed episode during the illness course. Nevertheless, (schizo)mixed episodes were rare-only 5.6% of all episodes. There was a trend that patients with (schizo)mixed episodes were more often women and exhibited more disability (reflected by higher rates of disability payments). Nevertheless, these differences failed to reach significance. Overall, schizo-mixed episodes are as frequent as "pure" affective mixed episodes. They might be linked to a less favourable course. Nevertheless, while their diagnostic criteria are problematic, they are systematically underdiagnosed.
This article reviews the employment status of people with MS, the importance of employment, key barriers to employment, and compensatory and accommodation strategies to enhance employment. Resources and recommendations for health care providers to assist their patients in maintaining, securing, or leaving employment are presented.
We are proposing to delete "Obesity," from the listing to adjudicate claims for disability under titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act) when we evaluate claims of individuals at step 3 of our sequential evaluation process. Current medical and vocational research demonstrates that, while many individuals with obesity are disabled, obesity, in and of itself, is not necessarily determinative of an individual's inability to engage in any gainful activity. Instead, individuals with obesity would have their cases reviewed under the listing for an affected body system(s) or, on a case-by-case basis, at the remaining steps of the sequential evaluation process.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We are adding a new listing to evaluate non-mosaic Down syndrome in adults. Our current regulations only include a listing for evaluating Down syndrome in children; we evaluate claims filed by adults with Down syndrome under other listings. We are establishing a separate adult listing for this disorder to acknowledge its lifelong impact and severity. We expect that these final rules will simplify and expedite our adjudication of claims filed by adults with non-mosaic Down syndrome.
As employers continue to tinker with designing stronger benefits packages, the impetus to reevaluate once-overlooked areas such as how their statutory disability program is doing probably will get more notice, as well. For employers residing in states with government-operated and mandated disability programs, the option at least to explore self-insuring this program should not be overlooked.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The formal principle of justice is often interpreted as the requirement of objectivity when a person's situation is to be evaluated in the light of social justice. The aim of this article is to analyse whether or not the formal principle of justice is fulfilled by the ontological and the epistemological concept of objectivity when disability claims are evaluated medically in relation to the Norwegian legislation on disability benefits. MATERIAL AND METHODS: material is legal and medical texts about medical disability evaluation. The method is text analysis. RESULTS: The main result is that the concept of ontological objectivity functions as the criterion of objectivity when the causal relations between sickness, impairment and disability are explained. This criterion is, however, problematic because it is based on the assumption that there is a linear causal model of these relations, which precludes the explanation of many cases of disability. INTERPRETATION: The ontological concept of objectivity is not a necessary condition for impartiality and formal justice in relation to the causal relation between sickness and disability. In some situations this concept is a sufficient condition. The epistemological concept of objectivity is a sufficient condition, but it is not a necessary condition. Some cases must be reviewed on a discretionary basis.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
We are revising the criteria in the Listing of Impairments (the listings) that we use to evaluate claims involving malignant neoplastic diseases. We apply these criteria when you claim benefits based on disability under title II and title XVI of the Social Security Act (the Act). The revisions reflect advances in medical knowledge, treatment, and methods of evaluating malignant neoplastic diseases.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Workers' compensation laws exist to compensate workers for injuries sustained on the job. In Israel, this includes mental as well as physical injuries, both generally described by the law as "work accidents." Courts readily accept mental injuries as work-related when they are caused by physical work events. In cases where a physical event precipitates mental injury, courts allow presumptions of work-relatedness as proof of part of the case. However, when a psychological event causes a psychological illness (referred to as "purely psychological" cases), courts must grapple with ascertaining whether these non-visible, internal events, often accompanied by multiple causes, have the requisite work connection to justify compensation. Ultimately, a court requires proof of each aspect of a purely psychological case to assure itself of the legitimacy of the claim. To provide courts with requisite proof of work-relatedness, a claimant in a purely psychological case must show that the event was sudden, unexpected, severe, and that it was caused in significant part by work, as viewed objectively, rather than on the basis of a claimant's subjective perception of reality. Gradual events, such as repetitive work stress, are generally not compensated. Presumptions of work-relatedness will not apply. The workers' compensation system cannot bear the burden for psychological events that occur as a usual part of the work environment or that are the result of multiple non-work-related causes.