Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37002833›Full record

ArticleHealth economics2023

The impact of Disability Insurance reassessment on healthcare use.

Samia Badji, Anne Kavanagh, Dennis Petrie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Samia BadjiCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7352-0232
Anne KavanaghMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Dennis PetrieCentre for Health Economics, Monash University, Caulfield East, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries have constrained Disability Income Insurance (DI) eligibility and reassessed those on DI to encourage workforce participation. But these policies can also have unintended consequences. While receiving less income can directly worsen physical and mental health, the stress related to reassessment and the possibility of losing DI may also adversely affect mental health. This paper uses Australian population-wide administrative data to explore how a 2014 policy - where DI recipients under 35 were reassessed under stricter criteria - affected healthcare use. We exploit this age targeting using a difference-in-difference regression design and find that the policy increased nervous system drug prescriptions (which includes antidepressants). Our findings suggest that the reassessment of DI recipients, even without income loss, may have had a significant negative impact on their mental health. DI reassessment policies may have the unintended consequence of worsening mental health and this needs be considered when deciding if reassessment is worthwhile.

Indexed as

Insurance, DisabilityPersons with DisabilitiesAustraliaDelivery of Health CareHumansIncomedisabilityhealthcare usereassessmentwelfare benefits

Identifiers

PMID37002833
PMCPMC10947330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.