PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to investigate actions taken by the Social Insurance Agency (SIA) for long-term sickness absentees and possible associations of this with future sick leave or disability pension. METHOD: For 384 long-term sickness absentees who had had a multidisciplinary medical assessment (MMA) during 2001-2006, three types of data were obtained: (1) case file information about SIA actions, (2) suggested rehabilitation measures from the MMA and (3) sickness absence and disability pension data. RESULTS: Most individuals had been subject to a range of actions by the SIA. Sixty percent had been invited to a coordination meeting, and half of those who assessed by the MMA for vocational rehabilitation were approved to get it by the SIA. Few SIA actions were associated with full or partial return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Although the studied individuals had been on sick leave for a long time, the number of SIA actions related to vocational rehabilitation was limited and came late in the sick-leave spell. The information from the MMA was often not used as a basis for further SIA action and seldom resulted in return to work. The positive MMA views on the potential of vocational rehabilitation were not met by SIA actions. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Suggestions on vocational rehabilitation from a medical assessment was in many cases not used by the social insurance agency in relationship to long-term sickness absentees. Active rehabilitation measures by the social insurance agency were few and came late in the sickness absence process. Few of the activities taken by the social insurance agency enhanced return to work.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to investigate actions taken by the Social Insurance Agency (SIA) for long-term sickness absentees and possible associations of this with future sick leave or disability pension. METHOD: For 384 long-term sickness absentees who had had a multidisciplinary medical assessment (MMA) during 2001-2006, three types of data were obtained: (1) case file information about SIA actions, (2) suggested rehabilitation measures from the MMA and (3) sickness absence and disability pension data. RESULTS: Most individuals had been subject to a range of actions by the SIA. Sixty percent had been invited to a coordination meeting, and half of those who assessed by the MMA for vocational rehabilitation were approved to get it by the SIA. Few SIA actions were associated with full or partial return to work. CONCLUSIONS: Although the studied individuals had been on sick leave for a long time, the number of SIA actions related to vocational rehabilitation was limited and came late in the sick-leave spell. The information from the MMA was often not used as a basis for further SIA action and seldom resulted in return to work. The positive MMA views on the potential of vocational rehabilitation were not met by SIA actions. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION: Suggestions on vocational rehabilitation from a medical assessment was in many cases not used by the social insurance agency in relationship to long-term sickness absentees. Active rehabilitation measures by the social insurance agency were few and came late in the sickness absence process. Few of the activities taken by the social insurance agency enhanced return to work.
Keywords:
Case files; return to work; sick leave; social insurance; social insurance officers; social work; vocational rehabilitation; welfare administration
Authors: M Dol; S Varatharajan; E Neiterman; E McKnight; M Crouch; E McDonald; C Malachowski; N Dali; E Giau; E MacEachen Journal: J Occup Rehabil Date: 2021-04-21