The main differences in the right to receive sickness benefits for the elderly – work

On September 1 last year, special, more generous conditions for sickness benefits were introduced for those aged 61 to 66 years.

The idea was that elderly people who had exhausted themselves in heavy occupations would not have to change to a new job when they only had a few years left until retirement.

The rules had a significant impact, a survey conducted by the Social Security Inspectorate showed.

Nearly three times as many seniors will receive sickness benefits under the new rules.

At the same time, the proportion of older people whose applications for sickness benefit were rejected fell sharply, from 64% in the year before the law change to 33%.

Physical wear and tear

The Social Democrats described the reform as a “security pension for the exhausted.”

Social Insurance Agency statistics show that people who work in physically demanding jobs and who suffer from diseases of the motor organs are now more likely to receive sickness benefits than others. In this way, the reform seems to have reached its goal.

But ambiguity in the new rules could lead to greater differences in different groups’ rights to sickness benefits than politicians intended, the Social Insurance Inspectorate warns.

When people aged 61 to 66 apply for sickness benefits, the Swedish Social Insurance Agency must test whether they can handle a job they have experience in in the past 15 years.

But what “experience” is is not clear from the law, nor from the preparatory work undertaken by the Riksdag and the government. Are a few weeks of work a few years ago enough? asks the manager at Försäkringskassan interviewed by investigators.

Unconfirmed processors

In the first place, it is not clear whether an older person’s ability to work should be assessed in light of the general requirements of the occupation in which he or she has experience – or in light of the requirements of the job he or she has had experience specifically.

After the change in the law, the directors at Försäkringskassan hesitated, thought and discussed. In order to finally finish, they have to test whether the person is able to perform the exact work that the person did before, as it seemed to him or her.

For example, a nurse aide who worked in a health center may need to be sicker to receive sickness benefits than a nurse aide who worked physically in hospice care.

“Was that the intention?”

The fact that the General Insurance Fund (Försäkringskassan) tests work ability against a specific job that a person has held in the past means that the requirements for change will be much lower for those covered by the “older-age rules” than for other people, according to the investigation. Which raises the question whether this big difference is the intention of politicians.

Are adaptation requirements intended to be so low that those who can handle a job with very minor modifications, perhaps even at their old workplace, do not have to work? Ask the investigators.

The new, more moderate rules for seniors only include people who have worked at Samhall for the past 15 years, something Arbetet has previously reviewed. This surprised the managers at Försäkringskassan.

Did the legislator intend for the matter to be more difficult for those who work in Samhal than for those who do not work? asks the insurance investigator mentioned in the investigation.

The insurance adjuster notes that the stair cleaner in Samahall has a very difficult job. Anyone with similar problems who did the same job but not at Samhall can get sickness benefits. But not the Samhall employee.

This result should not come as a surprise to the government: the Social Insurance Authority (Försäkringskassan) referred to it in its consultative response on the reform.