MUCH PROGRESS has been made in recent years in removing from
the shoulders of families the burden of caring for aged persons
after their working days are over. The Federal old-age insurance
program has opened a way to employees in industry and commerce whereby
they, with the help of their employers, can provide an income for
themselves after they have retired from gainful work. But no similar
protection is available to the worker forced to leave gainful employment
because of disability. If chronic disability cuts short the usefulness
of the breadwinner, it is still primarily the responsibility of
the family to provide for him. Since the disabled may need medical
and nursing care in addition to maintenance, the burden of disability
is generally heavier than that created by old age.
The social insurance method is applicable to the risk of disability
as well as old age. Through social insurance, cash benefits can
be provided for the disabled worker; the resources of families which
often must be used for the support of the disabled can be set free
to meet the more important needs of children, upon whom the future
of society rests.
Disability insurance is not unknown in this country. Most retirement
systems established on the basis of law provide benefits in case
of disability, in addition to old-age retirement allowances. One
of the best known examples of a retirement law which combines old-age
and disability allowances is the Railroad Retirement Act established
by Congress in 1935. The primary purpose of that act is to provide
retirement allowances for aged railroad workers; but the law also
gives benefits to workers who are totally and permanently disabled
for regular employment for hire, if they have reached age 60 or
have rendered 30 years' service to the railroads. By the inclusion
of such disability allowances, the retirement age becomes somewhat
flexible and is adjusted to the state of health and the working
capacity of the individual worker.
The arbitrariness of a retirement age fixed uniformly for all insured
individuals is also avoided in most retirement laws for Federal,
State, and local employees. Nearly all systems for various groups
of Federal employees grant disability benefits in addition to old-age
benefits. Eight of the eleven retirement laws for State employees
in effect at the beginning of 1938 contain disability as well as
old-age retirement provisions. All retirement systems for employees
of the larger cities also provide disability allowances, and of
the employees covered by the smaller municipal retirement systems
about 70 percent are insured against disability. Disability benefits
are included in all but very few teacher retirement systems, and
they are found in most pension systems for policemen and firemen.
Altogether, nearly 80 percent of the public employees who are covered
by a retirement law enjoy protection against disability as well
as old age. Many private retirement plans also provide protection
against disability.
The Federal old-age and survivors insurance program for workers
in industry and commerce is the only major retirement system in
this country which fails to provide benefits for insured workers
who are forced to retire from gainful work because of disability.
Under this law an insured worker can receive a benefit only after
he has reached age 65; should his health fail before that age, the
Federal insurance system affords him no protection at that time.
Experience under the older retirement laws of this country indicates
that it is sound to keep the retirement age flexible and that it
is feasible to combine an old-age retirement system with a system
of insurance against chronic disability. The purpose of both systems
is to enable workers with reduced earning capacity to retire from
gainful work, and to fill the vacancies created by their retirement
with workers of unimpaired efficiency. The retirement from the labor
market of workers disabled before age 65 is a necessary step in
efforts to increase the productive capacity of the Nation. The following
discussion on ways and means for extending the scope of old-age
and survivors insurance to include disability benefits has drawn
extensively on long years of experience of public retirement systems
in our own country. The results obtained abroad under systems of
disability insurance have also been utilized.
The Federal old-age and survivors insurance provisions insure workers
in industry and commerce against two risks--old age and death. As
soon as a person enters an employment covered by the law, he and
his employer are subject to the payment of contributions. Before
benefits are payable, a worker must have earned at least a minimum
amount of wages from covered employment extending over a specified
period of time. Old-age benefits are paid to the insured worker
after retirement at age 65 or thereafter and to his wife if she
is also at least 65 years of age. If an insured worker dies, survivors
benefits are paid to his widow if she has dependent children in
her care or has attained age 65, and to his dependent children until
age 16--or age 18 if they continue to attend school. If the insured
worker leaves no widow or unmarried child under the age of 18, benefits
are payable to his aged dependent parents. Old-age and survivors
benefits vary in amount from $10 to $85 a month, depending on the
wages received by the worker from covered employment, the number
of years during which he worked in covered employment, and the number
of persons in the family who are eligible for benefits.
To what extent are the benefit provisions of old-age and survivors
insurance applicable to a system of disability insurance, what new
provisions would need to be added, and in what respects would the
present law need to be changed so that the combined insurance system
against the risks of old age, disability, and death could be soundly
and effectively integrated?
Definition of Disability
The most important and also the most difficult question to be answered
concerns the types of disability which should come within the purview
of a new law. The purpose of a disability insurance system is to
grant a benefit to workers who are forced to leave gainful employment
for long periods of time or permanently because of loss of, or substantial
reduction in, earning capacity due to illness, loss of limb, or
other impairment of body or mind. This purpose is similar to that
of old-age insurance, which pays benefits to insured workers from
the time of retirement to the date of death. Because disability
insurance requires the payment of benefits over long period of time,
it can be, and often has been, fitted into old-age retirement systems.
Some of the questions which must be answered in deciding how disability
should be defined may be illustrated by reference to existing retirement
laws which furnish protection against disability. Under the retirement
law for the civil-service employees of the Government, for example,
an employee meets the test of disability if, by reason of disease
or injury, he is totally disabled for useful and efficient service
in the position occupied by him. The Railroad Retirement Act requires
that a railroad worker be "totally and permanently disabled for
regular employment for hire" before he is granted a disability benefit.
Under United States Life Insurance, purchasable by persons who served
in the military or naval forces of the United States during the
World War, total permanent disability is any "impairment of mind
or body which continuously renders it impossible for the disabled
person to follow any substantially gainful occupation, and which
is founded upon conditions which render it reasonably certain that
the total disability will continue throughout the life of the disabled
person."
The three definitions cited differ in several respects. The most
liberal is that incorporated is the civil-service retirement law,
not only because it contains no requirement that the disability
must be permanent but also because it makes no stipulation concerning
earning capacity in other occupations. The other two definitions
make permanency of the disability, or reasonable certainty that
it will be permanent, a prerequisite for the receipt of benefits.
The Railroad Retirement Act grants disability benefits only if the
disability is so severe that the insured worker cannot be regularly
employed for hire in any occupation. The United States Life Insurance
considers an insured person disabled if he cannot follow any substantially
gainful occupation, and leaves to the discretion of the Veterans
Administration the determination of the conditions under which an
occupation is to be considered substantially gainful. In practice,
the Veterans Administration interprets these provisions with regard
to the circumstances surrounding each individual case, instead of
applying a uniform test to all claimants.
The definition of disability under United States Life Insurance
rests on a concept which might well be incorporated in a disability
insurance law of wide scope. Disability is measured in terms of
reduction in earning capacity; if the reduction is such that the
worker can no longer engage in "substantially gainful work," he
is considered disabled. If that concept were adopted, the term disability
might be interpreted with regard to the past earnings history of
the insured worker. " Substantial earnings" would be a greater amount
for the worker whose earnings' level was fairly high prior to disability
than for the lower-paid worker. Such variation in the interpretation
of what constitutes "substantial earnings" would be in line with
the principle already embodied in old-age and survivors insurance
that benefits should be graduated according to the wage loss of
the worker.
Both the Railroad Retirement Act and United States Life Insurance
require a finding of permanence of disability before an insured
person may be certified as disabled. Experience confirms what common
sense indicates, that it is difficult in many cases to predict with
certainty that a disability will continue without improvement throughout
the remainder of a person's life. One test of the chronic character
of a disease or disablement--but by no means an infallible one--
is its elapsed duration. Commercial insurance companies utilize
this test in interpreting the permanent disability clauses incorporated
in life insurance contracts. Commonly, an insured person is adjudged
disabled if the disability has lasted 4 to 6 months, and the continuance
of the disability may be tested by reexaminations at periodic intervals.
Such an interpretation of the term permanence has many administrative
advantages, because it requires merely an investigation of a past,
and a periodic checkup on a current, condition rather than a prophecy
regarding the future development of a disease.
A 6-month waiting period would exclude most disabilities of a temporary
character, although some last more than 6 months. If disability
benefits are to be restricted to persons who suffer a chronic disability
or one presumably long-continued or permanent, a prognosis of the
disability must be made after expiration of the 6-month waiting
period. If the prognosis is doubtful, the findings of the examining
physician may be supplemented by the results of the examinations
by specialists or of laboratory or clinic tests, or the claimant
may be hospitalized for diagnostic or prognostic purposes. Certifying
officers could base their decision on the results of several examinations
conducted with a view toward resolving all reasonable doubts as
to the probable duration of the disability.
Relationship of Disability Insurance
to State Workmen's Compensation Laws
The State workmen's compensation laws provide compensation for
workers whose earning capacity has been impaired by injuries sustained
in the course of employment. Some laws also provide benefits for
workers suffering from occupational disease. If duplication of benefits
is to be avoided, the general disability insurance system must include
a provision which draws a clear division line between these two
systems, both of which serve the common purpose of replacing at
least a portion of the wages lost because of disability.
An analysis of 54 workmen's compensation laws of the United States
and its Territories, which was made by the Department of Labor at
the beginning of 1940, shows considerable variation among the provisions.
All 54 laws provide protection against permanent total disability
of industrial origin. Only 16, however, pay benefits throughout
the injured worker's life; 38 laws limit permanent disability benefits
with respect to either the number of weeks during which they may
be drawn or the total amount which may be paid in benefits or with
respect to both duration and total amount. Nearly one-half of all
the laws are confined to the compensation of accidental injuries,
although a number afford protection against some or all occupational
diseases.
Coverage is by no means uniform. Some laws apply only to employees
engaged in hazardous employments. Many exempt employers of less
than a certain number of workers. Employees engaged in agriculture,
domestic service, and casual work are usually excluded from protection,
and in some of the States certain other occupations are likewise
excluded.
The term disability is not defined uniformly. In some States, it
means inability to earn wages at the work in which the employee
was engaged at the time of the injury; in other States it means
the inability to perform any kind of work which might be obtained;
and some courts have decided that an injured worker is to receive
compensation if he is unable to obtain work.
Finally, there is still one State with no workmen's compensation
system.
The lack of uniformity in workmen's compensation provisions makes
it difficult to establish a uniform division line between workmen's
compensation and disability insurance. There are, however, various
alternative ways in which the two systems may be related to each
other.
One possibility would be to exclude from the Federal disability
insurance system all disabilities arising out of or in the course
of employment. The compensation of such disabilities would be left
to the States. While this solution would preclude Federal duplication
of benefits actually or potentially payable under workmen's compensation,
it has a number of drawbacks. In the first place, except in the
States with the most liberal workmen's compensation laws, a no-man's
land would remain between disability insurance and workmen's compensation
coverage or protection. A disabled worker might be disqualified
under the Federal law because the origin of his disability was found
by the Federal officers to have been connected with his work. Yet
under a number of circumstances he might fail to qualify for workmen's
compensation under State law, either because his employment was
excluded from the State system or because his right to workmen's
compensation was exhausted. Or the State might have determined that
the disability was not due to his employment. Or he may live in
the one State with as yet no workmen's compensation law.
It is evident that the exclusion of work-connected disabilities
would complicate the administration of a general disability insurance
system. In each case, the certifying board would have to investigate
the origin of the disability. The task of determining whether a
given disability rose out of or in the course of employment would
often be difficult and complex, as is well known from experience
under workmen's compensation.
Moreover, even after all necessary care had been exercised, a worker
might be denied benefits under both systems because the Federal
Government had decided that his disability was work-connected, while
the State found to the contrary. Or duplicate benefits might be
paid if the Federal Government should determine that the disability
was of nonindustrial origin, while the State found that it did arise
out of or in the course of employment.
All these difficulties could, however, be eliminated by providing
that benefits under the Federal law would be payable in those cases
in which the State authorities held that the disability was not
covered by the State law. Such a provision would, of course, make
the application of Federal law dependent on the action of State
legislatures and administrative agencies in determining the extent
to which State workmen's compensation laws would cover industrial
disabilities.
Another way to avoid these difficulties would be for disability
insurance to follow the precedent of the Federal old-age and survivors
insurance program, under which the survivors of deceased insured
workers receive benefits without regard to the cause of death. Likewise,
disability insurance might pay benefits to all eligible workers
who were disabled within the meaning of the law even if the disability
was of industrial origin; the physical or mental condition of the
claimant would be the sole criterion for the certification of disability.
The connection between the disability and the employment of the
worker would not need to be investigated.
This solution has obvious administrative advantages. If it is adopted,
however, a worker entitled to workmen's compensation under the law
of his State may receive two benefits, one from the Federal Government,
the other from the State or other carrier of workmen's compensation
insurance. The combined benefits may exceed the limits usually incorporated
in insurance laws to keep benefits below the wages which the worker
earned from gainful employment.
Having in mind the limitation of social insurance funds, the Social
Security Board has advised against the piling up of benefits under
parallel State and Federal legislation. The Board believes that
duplicate benefits should be paid only insofar as they may be needed
for the maintenance of the worker and his family. If the general
disability insurance system grants benefits for disabilities which
entitle the worker to workmen's compensation under State law, some
arrangement should ensure that the combined benefits do not exceed
the wages earned by the worker before became disabled. This result
may be achieved by adjusting the Federal benefits, if the worker
is eligible for workmen's compensation and if the combined benefits
exceed a specified limit.
Amount of Disability Benefit
Some of the retirement laws for public employees compute the disability
benefit in the same way as the old-age benefit. Would it be feasible
to use in the disability insurance law the benefit formula used
to determine the amount of the old-age benefit under the present
Federal program? This formula combines various elements which are
desirable in a social insurance system. The benefit is graduated
according to the wages received by the worker. The lower-paid worker
receives a higher proportion of his wage than the higher paid worker.
The benefit is increased in proportion to the number of years during
which the worker was covered by insurance. And finally, allowances
are granted to the dependent children and the aged dependent wife
of the beneficiary. Should these elements be incorporated in the
disability benefit formula?
The principle that the benefit should increase with the wage of
the worker is included in nearly all social insurance laws of the
United States and has found general approval. That the lower paid
worker should receive a higher proportion of his wage than the higher-paid
worker has also been generally accepted as socially sound. Without
doubt, these two principles should be incorporated in the disability
benefit formula.
Basic old-age and survivors benefits are increased by 1 percent
for every year the worker spent in covered employment. Valid reasons
may be advanced for elimination of this increment from the disability
benefits. Except for congenital defects, permanent disability is
relatively infrequent in youth and early adult life. The incidence
of permanent disability rises with age and increases sharply from
about 50 years on. At the higher years, it shades over gradually
into the debility of senescence. Withdrawal from gainful employment,
prior to the statutory retirement age, on grounds of disability,
should be discouraged unless the disability is so severe that continuance
in gainful work is impossible. Hence, it may be desirable to offer
some inducement to workers to defer retirement as long as possible.
If the disability benefit is less than the old-age benefit, the
worker approaching age 65 will have an interest in postponing his
retirement so as to receive the higher benefit at age 65. Such a
result may be achieved, particularly for future years, by eliminating
the increment from the calculation of the disability benefit.
Whether such a differentiation in the amount of the disability
and the old-age benefits would be effective in persuading workers
not totally or substantially disabled to defer retirement is open
to some question. The brief experience under old-age insurance indicates
that the benefits are not large enough to persuade workers to retire
from gainful work so long as they are able to hold a job paying
substantial salaries or wages. If this limited experience is an
indication of what would happen under disability insurance, workers
would apply for disability benefits only if they had lost their
jobs and were unable to find new ones or were so disabled that they
could not earn amounts substantially as large as, or larger than,
the potential benefits. In that case they would claim a disability
benefit immediately rather than wait a few years to get the larger
old-age benefit. Accordingly it may be argued that the same formula
should be used for both the disability and the old-age benefit.
Supplementary Allowances for Dependents
Whether the wife of the disability beneficiary should receive an
allowance is another difficult question. Under old-age insurance,
the wife of a beneficiary receives a wife's insurance benefit only
if she herself has reached age 65. Similarly, under the provisions
for survivors, a widow's insurance benefit is deferred to that age
unless the widow has in her care dependent children of the insured
worker. If the age requirement for a wife's allowance under disability
insurance were placed at age 65; such allowances would be paid in
rare instances only, for the disability benefit itself would cease
at age 65, when it would be replaced by an old-age benefit; if the
wife's allowance were confined to wives who had attained age 65,
only wives older than their disabled husbands would receive an allowance.
The age requirement of 65 for the receipt of wife's and widow's
allowances is presumably based on a tacit assumption that prior
to that age women can earn their living. However, the invalid husband
may need such constant care that the wife is not free to leave the
home to work. From this point of view it would be desirable to grant
an allowance to the wife of a disabled beneficiary without regard
to her age.
On the other hand, elimination of the age requirement for wife's
allowances in disability insurance would not be in harmony with
the retention of the age requirement in old-age and survivors insurance.
It would be illogical to make the wife of a disabled worker eligible
to an allowance irrespective of her age, and demand that the wife
of an old-age beneficiary wait until she has reached age 65 before
she can receive an allowance. Moreover, it would be somewhat inconsistent
to grant an allowance to the wife of a disabled worker while her
husband is alive, even though she is under 65, and to discontinue
the allowance after his death until she becomes 65. On logical grounds
it would seem that the age requirement must be eliminated from the
wife's and widow's allowances in old-age and survivors insurance
if the wife of the disabled worker receives an allowance regardless
of her age. Finally, if the wives and widows of insured workers
were to receive benefits regardless of age, it would seem difficult
to justify the retention of an age requirement of 65 for gainfully
occupied women who are insured in their own right.
These difficulties may be overcome by limiting the allowance to
cases involving disabled workers who are in constant need of care
and attention by another person. Such attendants' allowances might
be granted to all beneficiaries regardless of their marital status.
If the beneficiary's wife performed the functions of an attendant,
the allowance would go to her; in other cases, the allowance might
be used by the beneficiary to hire an attendant.
Attendants' allowances, though socially desirable, may be difficult
to administer. The examining physician must make a separate finding
as to the severity of the disability and the need for attendance,
and the administrative agency must supervise the expenditure of
the allowance to assure that it serves the purpose for which it
is granted. From the administrative point of view it may be desirable
to defer the introduction of attendants' allowances until the machinery
for certifying disability and for the payment of disability benefits
is operating smoothly.
While it does not appear feasible to grant wife's allowances in
all cases, a benefit may be paid to the wife if she has in her care
one or more minor children of the beneficiary. Such a provision
would be in harmony with the provision of survivors insurance under
which widows of any age are eligible for benefits while they care
for the minor children of the insured worker.
There can be little doubt as to the desirability of increasing
the benefit on behalf of dependent children of the disabled beneficiary.
Benefit amounts at present provided for individual workers under
old-age and survivors insurance may be sufficient for persons without
dependents; for families they may be seriously inadequate. As under
old-age insurance, the basic benefits should be supplemented when
the beneficiary is responsible for the maintenance of minor children.
Eligibility
To be eligible for old-age benefits, a worker must have been insured
for roughly one-half of the time during which he could have been
covered by the insurance system. After he has acquired 40 quarters
of coverage, with $50 of wages from covered employment in each of
these quarters, he retains his insurance rights permanently even
if he should cease to work. If, for example, a worker acquires 40
quarters of coverage by steady employment in covered occupations
between ages 20 and 30, his right to an old-age benefit will be
maintained to age 65. The question whether or not he is still attached
to covered employment at the time of retirement is irrelevant provided
he worked in such employment for a sufficiently long time in his
earlier working life.
For disability insurance it would seem desirable to require proof
that some of the covered employment was recent. Disability is more
difficult to determine than the attainment of age 65, and, since
the purpose of disability benefits is to replace wages lost because
of chronic illness or impairment, a recent work history is of great
importance, particularly in a system offering limited coverage.
Consequently, the eligibility requirements for disability insurance
should be so designed as to exclude from benefits persons who have
been out of covered employment for a long time or have left it permanently.
In addition to the half-coverage requirement of old-age insurance,
the worker should be required to show his normal attachment to covered
occupation by some recent employment in such occupations. It should
not be required, however, that he actually have such employment
at the time he applies for disability benefits or immediately preceding
his application. Insurance rights should be maintained during a
considerable period after the worker leaves employment, because
many chronic illnesses and permanent disablements are gradual in
their onset, and the eligibility requirements should be so designed
as to keep the insurance of the worker in force for at least a reasonable
length of time during a period of gradually waning earning capacity.
Maintenance of Rights to Old-Age
and Survivors Benefits
Through the introduction of disability insurance, a serious shortcoming
could be removed from the present old-age and survivors insurance.
As has been pointed out, the receipt of old-age and survivors benefits
is conditional upon the worker's having been in covered employment
for a certain length of time and his having earned at least a minimum
amount of wages from such employment. Insurance rights may be lost
if illness prevents the worker from following his occupation, particularly
if the illness is of extended duration. If the present law were
amended to preserve insurance rights during periods of disability,
a mechanism would have to be established to determine disability
in order that such periods could be recorded on the worker's wage
record, maintained by the Social Security Board for the purpose
of determining insurance rights. However, after the introduction
of disability insurance, periods of certified disability during
which the worker is in receipt of disability benefits can be readily
entered on the wage record of the worker, and his eligibility for
old-age and survivors benefits can be determined by omission of
these periods. Thus, in effect, the insurance rights of the worker
would be maintained during periods of certified disability. The
provision of disability insurance would therefore operate to enhance
greatly the protection afforded by old-age and survivors insurance.
Certification of Disability
As used in a social insurance law, the term disability is not purely
a medical concept. Unless the disability results in economic loss,
it is not compensable under the insurance system. In the certification
of disability, a medical examination determines the physical and
mental condition of the claimant for benefits. The economic loss
resulting from disability must be measured by an administrative
officer familiar with the conditions of the labor market and conversant
with the practices of employers in hiring, or refusing to hire,
persons with physical or mental impairments. To determine disability,
the physician and the labor market expert must combine judgment.
The development of certifying procedures will be facilitated if
advantage is taken of experience accumulated under retirement systems
for public employees and railroad workers, under pension legislation
for veterans, and workmen's compensation systems. Valuable guidance
in planning for effective administration may also be derived from
study of the practices evolved abroad as a result of many years
of experience in operating disability insurance systems of wide
coverage.
Rehabilitation
The provision of a small cash income for the worker who has lost
his earning capacity would assure him basic security. For the worker
whose invalidity is incurable there is no other solution. But the
problem of chronic disease should be attacked simultaneously from
another front. Not only are prevention of invalidity and restoration
of working capacity more valuable than cash benefits from the point
of view of the worker and of society, but they may result also in
considerable savings for the insurance system through the removal
of persons from benefit rolls.
A large majority of all chronic disablements are caused by a few
groups of diseases. Nervous, mental, and cardiovascular-renal diseases
are commonly the most important causes of chronic disability. Next
in importance are accidents, tuberculosis and rheumatism, arthritis
and allied diseases. Medical science still seeks cures for many
of the chronic ailments which befall men and women as they approach
old age. For persons afflicted with diseases which cannot yet be
cured, the only solution is the provision of a cash benefit for
the remainder of their lives. But there are others who suffer from
conditions which can be arrested or remedied, in part or in whole,
if proper care and treatment are furnished. Indeed, the payment
of cash benefits from a social insurance fund can scarcely be justified
if working capacity can be restored through an operation or treatment
or through rest in an appropriate home or institution. In the interest
of the insurance system, of the insured worker, and of society,
funds should be available for necessary treatment and care if there
is a reasonable likelihood that the worker may once more become
capable of earning his living.
The value of rehabilitation programs for disabled persons is attested
by the results obtained in foreign countries which have had considerable
experience. In the United States within recent years the Department
of Public Assistance of West Virginia has conducted a physical rehabilitation
program with considerable success. Funds are available for surgical
or medical treatment and hospitalization of adults in receipt of
assistance or relief, if they are, or may be expected to be, incapacitated
for gainful occupations by reason of a physical defect or infirmity.
These services cost little in comparison with the cost of relief
for a permanent invalid and his dependents. Under the West Virginia
program, a relief client is eligible for health services when he
is merely in danger of becoming an invalid. Incapacity need not
have developed fully--the program aims at prevention as well as
cure; it recognizes the importance of early diagnosis and care.
Physical rehabilitation services should be rendered before the worker
has become a permanent invalid. Those should be selected who have
the best chance of being rehabilitated.
Retraining for a new occupation, or occupational rehabilitation,
may restore earning capacity for persons who are prevented from
following their ordinary occupation by a chronic disablement. The
retraining programs which are in effect in most States are subsidized
by the Federal Government. These facilities should undoubtedly be
available to incapacitated workers insured under the Federal social
insurance program, and the cost of such training should be met by
the insurance fund.
Physical rehabilitation prolongs and restores the earning capacity
of insured workers. Vocational rehabilitation utilizes the remaining
earning capacity of a person who can no longer pursue his ordinary
occupation. For those who cannot be rehabilitated, cash benefits
should be provided.
A program of social insurance against disability should, therefore,
have a threefold purpose: medical and hospital care to prevent and
cure chronic disease; occupational retraining for persons with chronic
impairments; cash benefits for the chronic invalid. If public efforts
to alleviate the effects of chronic disease are organized around
a system of disability insurance, the resources of the insurance
system may be used to attack the problem of chronic disease on a
broad front. Until medical science has found solutions for the problem
of the chronic diseases, the emphasis of disability insurance must
of necessity be placed upon social security through the provision
of cash income for victims of chronic disease.
|