publicdata/ssa-gov
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions
ssa-gov/policy/docs/ssb/v79n1/v79n1p47.html
Scott A. Williams 88f0d540fb INitial commit
2025-02-19 12:17:21 -08:00

989 lines
No EOL
73 KiB
HTML
Raw Blame History

<!doctype html>
<html lang="en" class="no-js">
<head>
<meta charset="UTF-8" /><meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge,chrome=1" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
<title>The Prevalence of Employer-Provided Benefits by Industry of Employment and Implications for Social Security Disability Insurance Claiming Behavior</title>
<meta name="DCTERMS:dateCreated" content="2019-02" />
<meta name="DCTERMS:contentOffice" content="ORDP:ORES" />
<meta name="DCTERMS:contentOwner" content="publications@ssa.gov" />
<meta name="DCTERMS:coderOffice" content="ORDP:ORES:OD" />
<meta name="DCTERMS:coder" content="op.webmaster@ssa.gov" />
<meta name="DCTERMS:dateCertified" content="2025-01-01" />
<meta name="description" content="Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis" />
<meta property="og:site_name" content="Social Security Administration Research, Statistics, and Policy Analysis"/>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/policy/styles/doc.css" />
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/policy/styles/global.css" />
<!-- SSA INTERNET HEAD SCRIPTS -->
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.7.1.min.js" integrity="sha256-/JqT3SQfawRcv/BIHPThkBvs0OEvtFFmqPF/lYI/Cxo=" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.head.js"></script>
<script>(window.BOOMR_mq=window.BOOMR_mq||[]).push(["addVar",{"rua.upush":"false","rua.cpush":"false","rua.upre":"false","rua.cpre":"false","rua.uprl":"false","rua.cprl":"false","rua.cprf":"false","rua.trans":"SJ-3a3bb884-f513-47e3-a86c-84bab05e21dc","rua.cook":"true","rua.ims":"false","rua.ufprl":"false","rua.cfprl":"false","rua.isuxp":"false","rua.texp":"norulematch","rua.ceh":"false","rua.ueh":"false","rua.ieh.st":"0"}]);</script>
<script>!function(e){var n="https://s.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if("False"=="True")e.BOOMR_config=e.BOOMR_config||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams=e.BOOMR_config.PageParams||{},e.BOOMR_config.PageParams.pci=!0,n="https://s2.go-mpulse.net/boomerang/";if(window.BOOMR_API_key="LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB",function(){function e(){if(!o){var e=document.createElement("script");e.id="boomr-scr-as",e.src=window.BOOMR.url,e.async=!0,i.parentNode.appendChild(e),o=!0}}function t(e){o=!0;var n,t,a,r,d=document,O=window;if(window.BOOMR.snippetMethod=e?"if":"i",t=function(e,n){var t=d.createElement("script");t.id=n||"boomr-if-as",t.src=window.BOOMR.url,BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),e=e||d.body,e.appendChild(t)},!window.addEventListener&&window.attachEvent&&navigator.userAgent.match(/MSIE [67]\./))return window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="s",void t(i.parentNode,"boomr-async");a=document.createElement("IFRAME"),a.src="about:blank",a.title="",a.role="presentation",a.loading="eager",r=(a.frameElement||a).style,r.width=0,r.height=0,r.border=0,r.display="none",i.parentNode.appendChild(a);try{O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}catch(_){n=document.domain,a.src="javascript:var d=document.open();d.domain='"+n+"';void(0);",O=a.contentWindow,d=O.document.open()}if(n)d._boomrl=function(){this.domain=n,t()},d.write("<bo"+"dy onload='document._boomrl();'>");else if(O._boomrl=function(){t()},O.addEventListener)O.addEventListener("load",O._boomrl,!1);else if(O.attachEvent)O.attachEvent("onload",O._boomrl);d.close()}function a(e){window.BOOMR_onload=e&&e.timeStamp||(new Date).getTime()}if(!window.BOOMR||!window.BOOMR.version&&!window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted){window.BOOMR=window.BOOMR||{},window.BOOMR.snippetStart=(new Date).getTime(),window.BOOMR.snippetExecuted=!0,window.BOOMR.snippetVersion=12,window.BOOMR.url=n+"LERZW-HECFS-R8H4E-23UQ7-ERMQB";var i=document.currentScript||document.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],o=!1,r=document.createElement("link");if(r.relList&&"function"==typeof r.relList.supports&&r.relList.supports("preload")&&"as"in r)window.BOOMR.snippetMethod="p",r.href=window.BOOMR.url,r.rel="preload",r.as="script",r.addEventListener("load",e),r.addEventListener("error",function(){t(!0)}),setTimeout(function(){if(!o)t(!0)},3e3),BOOMR_lstart=(new Date).getTime(),i.parentNode.appendChild(r);else t(!1);if(window.addEventListener)window.addEventListener("load",a,!1);else if(window.attachEvent)window.attachEvent("onload",a)}}(),"".length>0)if(e&&"performance"in e&&e.performance&&"function"==typeof e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize)e.performance.setResourceTimingBufferSize();!function(){if(BOOMR=e.BOOMR||{},BOOMR.plugins=BOOMR.plugins||{},!BOOMR.plugins.AK){var n="false"=="true"?1:0,t="cookiepresent",a="eyd7g6aaiaaamjqacqdfqaaaabt3mov2-f-d1ee15d8e-clienttons-s.akamaihd.net",i="false"=="true"?2:1,o={"ak.v":"39","ak.cp":"1204614","ak.ai":parseInt("728289",10),"ak.ol":"0","ak.cr":3,"ak.ipv":6,"ak.proto":"h2","ak.rid":"14c967a1","ak.r":19138,"ak.a2":n,"ak.m":"dsca","ak.n":"essl","ak.bpcip":"2607:f378:40:6::","ak.cport":40630,"ak.gh":"23.60.168.62","ak.quicv":"","ak.tlsv":"tls1.3","ak.0rtt":"","ak.0rtt.ed":"","ak.csrc":"-","ak.acc":"","ak.t":"1739995834","ak.ak":"hOBiQwZUYzCg5VSAfCLimQ==WhNm4G3XUwQNWzIgAKAje4ds/up9PaWqo50H8brdBbN9MOj0WeqLCbvX13ZRXgwNjFJT1OGdCe6JZTv6m2j/st7SmckfhjKWE1GF3qa4eQingRFHQbQwC1aeqGBks5ypFiLFyFwEVITWBnPDmV6T8DCceTx32n0lIwOh3JQjbqA2At2OFBwN1mxel5kGS/E0jXiR3K5Qc3WMp0CHBu/Z+PO2pN943wvfsUwVSrbJewRXTIpxZ53mzwe3tBS/DetfiU7qQQzF/YO2dtP1SFbCjiah/EA7bmonfnaWFB87xNJMs/eaLSRbovBQmXVbjMf50JXDlIhxqCUTw8NjTErj5M+k90Q/qgAdlQoqxAzTnEWTYfqKjoCM3ezVX4oMpoXenLsp4EXPCPMOGX60jwZ0znwUan7x+myPP5xAftHFtA4=","ak.pv":"98","ak.dpoabenc":"","ak.tf":i};if(""!==t)o["ak.ruds"]=t;var r={i:!1,av:function(n){var t="http.initiator";if(n&&(!n[t]||"spa_hard"===n[t]))o["ak.feo"]=void 0!==e.aFeoApplied?1:0,BOOMR.addVar(o)},rv:function(){var e=["ak.bpcip","ak.cport","ak.cr","ak.csrc","ak.gh","ak.ipv","ak.m","ak.n","ak.ol","ak.proto","ak.quicv","ak.tlsv","ak.0rtt","ak.0rtt.ed","ak.r","ak.acc","ak.t","ak.tf"];BOOMR.removeVar(e)}};BOOMR.plugins.AK={akVars:o,akDNSPreFetchDomain:a,init:function(){if(!r.i){var e=BOOMR.subscribe;e("before_beacon",r.av,null,null),e("onbeacon",r.rv,null,null),r.i=!0}return this},is_complete:function(){return!0}}}}()}(window);</script></head>
<body class="research">
<article itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ScholarlyArticle"> <meta itemprop="datePublished" content="2019-02" /><meta itemprop="image" content="cover.jpg" />
<header>
<div id="hLogo"><a class="navLogo" href="/policy/index.html">Social Security</a><a class="navSearch" href="https://search.ssa.gov/search?affiliate=ssa">SEARCH</a></div>
<div id="hRedBar">
<div id="hDocInfo">
<h1 itemprop="headline"><span class="bannerNote">NOTE:</span>&nbsp;The Prevalence of Employer-Provided Benefits by Industry of Employment and Implications for Social Security Disability Insurance Claiming&nbsp;Behavior</h1>
<div id="hByline">by <span itemprop="author">&#1254;zlen&nbsp;D. Luznar and Jackson Costa</span><br>Social Security Bulletin, <abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr>&nbsp;79 <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr>&nbsp;1, 2019 (released February 2019)</div>
</div>
</div>
</header>
<nav>
<div id="breadcrumbs" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/BreadcrumbList">You are here: <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Social Security Administration</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="1" /></span> &gt; <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/policy/index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Research, Statistics &amp; Policy Analysis</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="2" /></span> &gt; <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="/policy/docs/ssb/index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name">Social Security Bulletin</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="3" /></span> &gt; <span itemprop="itemListElement" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/ListItem"><a href="index.html" itemprop="item"><span itemprop="name"><abbr title="Volume">Vol.</abbr>&nbsp;79 <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr>&nbsp;1</span></a><meta itemprop="position" content="4" /></span></div>
<div id="rspaUtil"><ul><li id="mail"><a class="js-ga-event" href="#" rel="nofollow" data-event="outbound-link" data-event-action="click" data-event-label="email-this">Email</a></li><li id="print"><a href="#" rel="nofollow">Save/Print</a></li></ul></div>
</nav>
<div class="innards">
<div class="introBox">
<p id="synopsis" itemprop="description">Policymakers seek effective ways to restore or maintain the labor force participation of current and potential Social Security Disability Insurance (<abbr class="spell">DI</abbr>) beneficiaries. The availability of certain types of employer-provided benefits may affect whether workers with health impairments are able to maintain employment. In this research note, we use National Compensation Survey data to estimate the availability of employer-sponsored health insurance and paid leave by industry. We find that most types of employer-provided benefits were offered to greater shares of state and local government workers than to private-sector workers. However, private short- and <span class="nobr">long-term</span> disability insurance offerings were more prevalent in the private sector.</p>
<hr />
<div class="eightypercent">
<p>&#1254;zlen Luznar is with the Division of Modeling, Office of Analytics and Improvements, Office of Analytics, Review, and Oversight, Social Security Administration (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>). Jackson Costa is with the Office of Research and Demonstration, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Employment Support, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>.</p>
<p><i>Acknowledgments:</i> We thank Lawrence Surowitz, Mark Trapani, and Jesus Ranon for their helpful comments and suggestions; Kristin Monaco and John Bishow at <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> for enabling us to access the <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> data (and for clearing our data analyses); and Susan Wilschke for providing both. We also thank David Weaver, who supported and encouraged this research.</p>
<p>Contents of this publication are <a href="/policy/accessibility.html">not copyrighted</a>; any items may be reprinted, but citation of the <i>Social Security Bulletin</i> as the source is requested. The findings and conclusions presented in the <i>Bulletin</i> are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Social Security Administration.</p>
</div>
</div>
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<div class="abbrtable">
<table role="presentation">
<caption>Selected Abbreviations</caption>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:25%"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="1"></colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr></td>
<td>Bureau of Labor Statistics</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">DI</abbr></td>
<td>Disability Insurance</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr></td>
<td><span class="nobr">long-term</span> disability</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr></td>
<td>North American Industry Classification System</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr></td>
<td>National Compensation Survey</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr></td>
<td>Social Security Administration</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td><abbr class="spell">STD</abbr></td>
<td><span class="nobr">short-term</span> disability</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<p>The two largest federal income assistance programs for individuals with disabilities are Social Security Disability Insurance (<abbr class="spell">DI</abbr>) and Supplemental Security Income (<abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr>), both administered by the Social Security Administration (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>). The Social Security Act defines disability as &ldquo;the inability to engage in substantial gainful activity (<abbr class="spell">SGA</abbr>) by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death, or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12&nbsp;months.&rdquo; Although both programs use that definition, their eligibility requirements differ. <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> provides cash benefits to workers who leave the labor force because of a mental or physical disability.<sup><a href="#mn1" id="mt1">1</a></sup> These individuals have a work history and an earnings record, they have paid Federal Insurance Contributions Act (<abbr>FICA</abbr>) taxes, and they are unable to earn at the <abbr class="spell">SGA</abbr> level because of their disabling <span class="nobr">condition(s)</span>. <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits replace some of the earnings lost because of disability. <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr>, on the other hand, provides means-tested payments to working-age individuals with low income and few resources who are not able to work because of disability. Some <abbr class="spell">SSI</abbr> recipients also qualify for a modest <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefit.</p>
<p>Applications for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> disabled-worker benefits increased from about 1.3&nbsp;million in 2000 to a peak of 2.8&nbsp;million in 2010. About 2.2&nbsp;million workers applied for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits in 2016 (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2018, Table&nbsp;60). Various factors may have contributed to the fluctuating trends in <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> applications and enrollment over the years, such as changes in the prevalence of employee access to employer-sponsored health insurance (Livermore, Wittenburg, and Neumark 2014). Employers may voluntarily offer health insurance and paid leave to provide their employees with security against unforeseen events that might arise during their productive years. Such benefits offer economic stability for workers and their families, which in turn helps to insulate the wider <abbr>U.S.</abbr> economy against potential shocks. Employer-provided benefits can be seen as a partnership among businesses, individual workers, and the government, in that employer costs for many such benefits are partially offset by tax advantages. In addition to providing employee benefits voluntarily, employers are obligated to contribute to government-administered programs via taxes. Social Security coverage (for disabled and retired workers and their dependents), unemployment insurance, workers' compensation, and family and medical leave<sup><a href="#mn2" id="mt2">2</a></sup> are, for most jobs, mandatorily provided (Employee Benefit Research Institute 2011, Chapter 1). One would expect to observe little or no variation in the coverage of most workers under these mandatory programs. However, the voluntary provision of employee benefits, such as employer-sponsored health insurance, paid leave, and short- and <span class="nobr">long-term</span> disability insurance, might vary widely.</p>
<p>Analyzing the potential interactions between elective employer-provided benefits and application for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits can provide useful insights to employers, workers, and policymakers. In this research note, we examine the extent to which employers in different industries offered selected types of health insurance and paid leave to employees and compare those patterns with the industry distribution of <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiaries' last employment. Such statistics could be used to test the assumption that employees who have access to employer-sponsored health insurance and paid leave would use those benefits to delay or forestall a workforce exit because of a disability. Depending on the nature and severity of the disability, access to timely care also could dissuade some workers from filing disability claims (Dement and others 2015; Schimmel Hyde and Livermore&nbsp;2016).</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>Several studies have explored the relationship between the health condition of <abbr>U.S.</abbr> workers, the availability of health insurance, and <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> application volume (Livermore, Stapleton, and O'Toole 2011; Du&nbsp;Bois and Donceel 2008). Salkever and others (2000) study <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiaries who have a mental disorder and examine the severity of their diagnoses, their sociodemographic characteristics, their access to health care, and their <span class="nobr">long-term</span> disability (<abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr>) benefit claiming behavior. The authors observe that <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> claimants may consider several factors in deciding whether to return to work, including the generosity of the <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> benefits, the severity of the disabling condition, and the availability of supplemental compensation. They further observe that workers who leave their jobs because of a severe mental health problem may need ongoing treatment from their providers and adequate supports from employers after they return to work. The authors conclude that greater access to specialized mental health treatment and generous health insurance coverage could reduce the number of disability claims and thereby allow some workers to remain employed or return to work after claiming <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> benefits. Nonetheless, for some workers with severe mental health conditions, <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> application may be inevitable.</p>
<p>Schimmel Hyde and Livermore (2016) assess the effect of the Affordable Care Act (<abbr class="spell">ACA</abbr>) of 2010 on timely access to health care among employed individuals with work-limiting disabilities. The authors find that many disabled workers work <span class="nobr">part-time</span> or intermittently, which makes them ineligible for employer-sponsored health insurance and other benefits. Although the <abbr class="spell">ACA</abbr> expanded access to health insurance, the authors find that disabled workers have greater difficulty obtaining timely health care than individuals without work-limiting conditions. The authors note that disabled workers' timely access to health care may need to be reexamined now that the <abbr class="spell">ACA</abbr> is fully implemented.</p>
<p>O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015) present a table that reports the distribution of <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> disabled-worker beneficiaries in 2013 by industry of last employment. The authors identify industries using North American Industry Classification System (<abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr>) designations.<sup><a href="#mn3" id="mt3">3</a></sup> We reprint that table here as Table&nbsp;1, which shows that most of the beneficiaries in 2013 had previously worked in the services, retail trade, or manufacturing industries. The least common industries of previous employment among 2013 <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiaries were wholesale trade, mining, and public administration.<sup><a href="#mn4" id="mt4">4</a></sup> It is worth noting that the availability, variety, and generosity of health insurance and paid leave benefits vary across industries. Knowledge of these variations in employer-provided benefits may help researchers to better understand the composition of the <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiary population and may improve efforts to help workers with impairments.</p>
<div class="table" id="table1">
<table>
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table&nbsp;1. </span><abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> disabled-worker beneficiaries in 2013: Percentage distribution by industry of last employment, with detail by sex and summary comparisons to total employment in 2002 and&nbsp;2012</caption>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:20em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="3" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Industry</th>
<th colspan="3" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Disabled workers (2013)</th>
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Total employment</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Men</th>
<th scope="col">Women</th>
<th scope="col">Total</th>
<th scope="col">2002</th>
<th scope="col">2012</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Agriculture, forestry, and fishing</th>
<td>3.7</td>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>2.5</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>1.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Mining</th>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>0.1</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.4</td>
<td>0.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Construction</th>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>4.4</td>
<td>5.0</td>
<td>4.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Manufacturing</th>
<td>15.3</td>
<td>9.2</td>
<td>12.4</td>
<td>11.4</td>
<td>8.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Transportation, communications, electric, gas, and sanitation</th>
<td>6.9</td>
<td>3.3</td>
<td>5.1</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>3.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Wholesale trade</th>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>4.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retail trade</th>
<td>16.2</td>
<td>19.4</td>
<td>17.8</td>
<td>11.3</td>
<td>10.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Finance, insurance, and real estate</th>
<td>6.2</td>
<td>8.1</td>
<td>7.1</td>
<td>5.9</td>
<td>5.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="topPad1">
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Services</th>
<td>38.6</td>
<td>55.6</td>
<td>46.8</td>
<td>40.3</td>
<td>44.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Hotels, rooming houses, camps, and other lodging places</th>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>1.7</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Personal services</th>
<td>0.7</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.1</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Business services</th>
<td>12.9</td>
<td>11.3</td>
<td>12.1</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Automotive and miscellaneous repair services and parking</th>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>1.3</td>
<td>2.3</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Amusement, recreation, parks, and museums</th>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>3.5</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Health services</th>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>16.3</td>
<td>10.1</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Legal services</th>
<td>0.2</td>
<td>0.8</td>
<td>0.5</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Educational services</th>
<td>1.9</td>
<td>3.6</td>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Social services</th>
<td>2.7</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>4.2</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Membership organizations</th>
<td>1.2</td>
<td>1.6</td>
<td>1.4</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Engineering, accounting, research, management, and related services</th>
<td>3.8</td>
<td>4.3</td>
<td>4.1</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Miscellaneous services</th>
<td>3.0</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>3.2</td>
<td>a</td>
<td>a</td>
</tr>
<tr class="topPad1">
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Public administration</th>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>0.6</td>
<td>16.1</td>
<td>16.1</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td class="firstNote" colspan="6">SOURCE: Reprinted from O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015, Table&nbsp;3); based on <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2013 Disability Analysis File, <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2012 Continuous Work History Sample, and Bureau of Labor Statistics&nbsp;(2013).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="note" colspan="6">NOTES: &quot;Industry of last employment&quot; reflects the most recent job (within 10&nbsp;years) prior to the date of current eligibility for disabled-worker benefits. If a beneficiary worked more than one job in the most recent year, the highest-paying of those jobs determines the industry.
<div class="newNote">Calculations include adjustments to account for slight interagency differences in industry category definitions as well as to intra-agency revisions to those definitions over time.</div>
<div class="newNote">Rounded components of percentage distributions do not necessarily sum to 100.0.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="lastNote" colspan="6">a. Inconsistencies in the service-industry subcategory definitions used by <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (and between those used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in 2002 and in 2012) prevent useful cross-column comparisons.</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
</div>
<p>We extend the findings of O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015) by presenting estimates of the prevalence of employer-sponsored health insurance and paid leave benefits by <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sector. In 2016, more than 2.2&nbsp;million workers applied for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits claiming a qualifying medical condition preventing them from working, and nearly 500,000 applicants were awarded benefits (<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> 2018, Table&nbsp;60). To what extent might access to employer-sponsored health insurance and paid leave affect <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> application rates? Some researchers and advocates suggest that increased availability of health insurance and paid leave increases the likelihood that employees receive adequate preventive and routine care, keeping them healthier for the duration of their working years. Workers with such access would presumably be better able to remain productive, maintain a higher standard of living, and avoid applying for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> or public welfare programs (Stapleton and others 2006). If workers are healthier, the <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> award rate might decrease as well. Additionally, workers who have access to paid (or unpaid) leave are better positioned to keep their jobs through a prolonged absence caused by a medical condition.</p>
<p>We examine four types of health insurance: medical, prescription drug, dental, and vision coverage. We likewise examine four categories of paid leave: sick; personal; &ldquo;other,&rdquo; comprising paid time off for funerals, military service, or jury duty; and &ldquo;any,&rdquo; which includes all types in the preceding three categories as well as paid holidays and vacations. We also present data on access to private <span class="nobr">short-term</span> disability (<abbr class="spell">STD</abbr>) and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance plans.</p>
<h2>Data and Methodology</h2>
<p>Under the authority of an interagency agreement between <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (<abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr>), we use data collected by <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> in the 2013 National Compensation Survey (<abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>). The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> is a voluntary establishment-based survey that produces nationally representative estimates of employer-provided benefit availability, provisions, and costs. <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> respondents include private-sector employers from each <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sector except the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector. The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> also includes public-sector employers at the state and local level but excludes the federal government (Pierce&nbsp;1999).<sup><a href="#mn5" id="mt5">5</a>,<a href="#mn6" id="mt6">6</a></sup></p>
<p>Our variables of interest are industry of employment, identified by <span class="nobr">2-digit</span> <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code; whether the employer is a private-sector establishment, a state government, or a local government; and the availability of four types of health insurance, four categories of paid leave, and private <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance for employees. Although the <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> excludes the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector, the scope of our industry coverage is otherwise consistent with that of O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015), which accounts for most but not all <abbr>U.S.</abbr> employment. Note that our industry-level results do not correspond directly with those in O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015). Those authors used administrative records from <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> as their primary data sources while we use the <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>. In addition, the level of detail in the industry designations differ in some instances between their study and ours.</p>
<p>Our data set covers 28,065 establishments in local government, state government, and the private sector. To make our estimates nationally representative, we use <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> sample weights in our statistical analysis. To eliminate the possibility of identifying individual survey respondents from the estimates, <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> suppressed data in some instances prior to our analysis.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<p>Table&nbsp;2 presents the distribution of the employees of the respondent establishments in our sample by employer type, with detail for full- and <span class="nobr">part-time</span> workers. Most of the employees reported by the sample establishments worked in the private sector (88.8&nbsp;percent). State governments employed 7.8&nbsp;percent of the sample and local governments employed the remaining 3.4&nbsp;percent. <span class="nobr">Full-time</span> workers dominated nearly every subgroup in the sample. Almost 98&nbsp;percent of local government employees worked full time in 2013. Among state government and private-sector employees, about 88&nbsp;percent and 86&nbsp;percent, respectively, worked full time. More than <span class="nobr">two-thirds</span> of employees in the sample worked in one of three industries: finance, insurance, and real estate (24.3&nbsp;percent); manufacturing (24.0&nbsp;percent); and retail trade (19.2&nbsp;percent).</p>
<div class="table" id="table2">
<table>
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table&nbsp;2. </span>Employment in <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> respondent establishments: Full- and <span class="nobr">part-time</span> workers, by employer type, 2013</caption>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:23em"></colgroup>
<colgroup class="shaded" span="1" style="width:4em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="2" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Employer type</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code</th>
<th colspan="2" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">All workers</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Full time</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Part time</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup">Percentage full time</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Number</th>
<th scope="col">Percentage distribution</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th class="stub2" scope="rowgroup">Total</th>
<td>.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.</td>
<td>28,065</td>
<td>100.0</td>
<td>24,195</td>
<td>3,870</td>
<td>86.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Local government</th>
<td>.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.</td>
<td>946</td>
<td>3.4</td>
<td>922</td>
<td>24</td>
<td>97.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">State government</th>
<td>.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.</td>
<td>2,185</td>
<td>7.8</td>
<td>1,916</td>
<td>269</td>
<td>87.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Private sector</th>
<td>.&nbsp;.&nbsp;.</td>
<td>24,934</td>
<td>88.8</td>
<td>21,357</td>
<td>3,577</td>
<td>85.7</td>
</tr>
<tr class="topPad1">
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Industry</th>
<td></td>
<td colspan="5"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Mining</th>
<td>21</td>
<td>262</td>
<td>0.9</td>
<td>259</td>
<td>3</td>
<td>98.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Construction</th>
<td>23</td>
<td>2,022</td>
<td>7.2</td>
<td>1,921</td>
<td>101</td>
<td>95.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Manufacturing</th>
<td><span class="nobr">31&ndash;33</span></td>
<td>6,725</td>
<td>24.0</td>
<td>6,623</td>
<td>102</td>
<td>98.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Wholesale trade</th>
<td>42</td>
<td>1,619</td>
<td>5.8</td>
<td>1,526</td>
<td>93</td>
<td>94.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Retail trade</th>
<td><span class="nobr">44&ndash;45</span></td>
<td>5,390</td>
<td>19.2</td>
<td>2,921</td>
<td>2,469</td>
<td>54.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Transportation, communications, and utilities</th>
<td><span class="nobr">48&ndash;49</span></td>
<td>1,515</td>
<td>5.4</td>
<td>1,240</td>
<td>275</td>
<td>81.8</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Finance, insurance, and real estate</th>
<td>52</td>
<td>6,831</td>
<td>24.3</td>
<td>6,516</td>
<td>315</td>
<td>95.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Services</th>
<td>81</td>
<td>821</td>
<td>2.9</td>
<td>572</td>
<td>249</td>
<td>69.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Public administration</th>
<td>92</td>
<td>2,880</td>
<td>10.3</td>
<td>2,617</td>
<td>263</td>
<td>90.9</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td class="firstNote" colspan="7">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on the 2013 <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="lastNote" colspan="7">NOTES: The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> does not cover the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector (<abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;11) or the federal government.
<div class="newNote">Employment in public administration (<abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;92) does not equal the sum of employment in local and state government. The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> may code certain government employees according to job tasks or responsibilities that are typically associated with a particular private-sector industry.</div>
<div class="newNote"> .&nbsp;.&nbsp;.&nbsp;= not applicable.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
</div>
<p>Table&nbsp;3 shows the proportions of workers who had access in 2013 to various types of employer-provided benefits in state and local government and the private sector. For each type of health insurance, the proportions were highest for state government workers and were lowest for private-sector workers. For example, 97.3&nbsp;percent of state government workers had access to medical insurance, whereas only 83.2&nbsp;percent of local government workers and 76.9&nbsp;percent of private industry workers had such access. Prescription drug coverage was nearly as prevalent as medical coverage for all three employer types. Dental insurance was available to 63.5&nbsp;percent of state government workers, 61.7&nbsp;percent of local government workers, and 50.7&nbsp;percent of private-sector workers. Among the types of health insurance, vision benefits were the least prevalent (47.3&nbsp;percent or lower).</p>
<div class="table" id="table3">
<table>
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table&nbsp;3. </span>Percentage of workers with access to selected benefits, by employer type,&nbsp;2013</caption>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:27em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="3" style="width:8em"></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Benefit type</th>
<th scope="col">State government</th>
<th scope="col">Local government</th>
<th scope="col">Private sector</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Health insurance</th>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Medical</th>
<td>97.3</td>
<td>83.2</td>
<td>76.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Prescription drugs</th>
<td>93.9</td>
<td>81.2</td>
<td>75.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Dental</th>
<td>63.5</td>
<td>61.7</td>
<td>50.7</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Vision</th>
<td>47.3</td>
<td>44.6</td>
<td>25.2</td>
</tr>
<tr class="topPad1">
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Paid leave</th>
<td colspan="3"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Any (holiday, vacation, sick, personal, or other leave)</th>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>91.9</td>
<td>90.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Sick</th>
<td>97.9</td>
<td>88.3</td>
<td>84.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Personal</th>
<td>66.2</td>
<td>47.5</td>
<td>37.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Other (leave for funerals, military service, or jury duty)</th>
<td>98.0</td>
<td>89.7</td>
<td>74.9</td>
</tr>
<tr class="topPad1">
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup"><abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> insurance</th>
<td>29.3</td>
<td>24.8</td>
<td>45.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup"><abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance</th>
<td>30.8</td>
<td>31.3</td>
<td>34.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td class="onlyNote" colspan="4">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on 2013 <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>.</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
</div>
<p>The patterns of access to paid leave were similar to those for health insurance, with the proportions highest for state government workers and lowest for private-sector workers. About 98&nbsp;percent of state government workers had access to sick or other paid leave in 2013, a proportion no lower than that for access to <i>any</i> type of paid leave. The proportions of private-sector workers with access to sick leave, other leave, and any leave were 84.4&nbsp;percent, 74.9&nbsp;percent, and 90.3&nbsp;percent, respectively. Access to private <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance was much lower than access to almost all the other benefit types. Among state government workers, only 29.3&nbsp;percent had access to <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> insurance and 30.8&nbsp;percent had access to <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance. The respective access rates for local government workers were comparable, at 24.8&nbsp;percent and 31.3&nbsp;percent. Private-sector workers had the highest access rates, at 45.3&nbsp;percent and 34.2&nbsp;percent, respectively.</p>
<p>O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015) reported that 46.8&nbsp;percent of 2013 <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> disabled-worker beneficiaries had last worked in the services industry, which accounted for 44.6&nbsp;percent of total employment in 2012. However, only 0.6&nbsp;percent of <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiaries had worked in public administration, in stark contrast with that industry's 16.1&nbsp;percent share of total employment in 2012. Variations in the industry-of-employment distributions of current workers and of disabled-worker beneficiaries&mdash;and the causes of those variations&mdash;are of research interest. Different levels of access to health insurance, paid leave, and private disability insurance for employees across industries may be one of the factors. As a preliminary exploration, we present the proportions of workers with access to employer-sponsored health and leave benefits, by industry sector and selected subsector,<sup><a href="#mn7" id="mt7">7</a></sup> in Tables&nbsp;4 and&nbsp;5.</p>
<p>Table&nbsp;4 covers access to health insurance in 2013. Regardless of industry, access to medical insurance was the most prevalent, followed in descending order by access to prescription drug, dental, and vision coverage.</p>
<p>The industry sectors in which employers were most likely to offer medical coverage were mining; manufacturing; and finance, insurance, and real estate. Medical coverage was available to about 92&nbsp;percent of employees in each of those <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> sectors.<sup><a href="#mn8" id="mt8">8</a></sup> Workers in the services and retail trade industry sectors were the least likely to have access to medical coverage, at 49.5&nbsp;percent and 60.7&nbsp;percent, respectively.<sup><a href="#mn9" id="mt9">9</a></sup> Access to prescription drug coverage ranged from 91.6&nbsp;percent for workers in the finance, insurance, and real estate sector to 48.3&nbsp;percent in the services sector.<sup><a href="#mn10" id="mt10">10</a></sup> The availability of dental insurance ranged from a high of 75.4&nbsp;percent for workers in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry to a low of 27.9&nbsp;percent for workers in the services industry. The industry sector with the highest proportion of workers who had access to vision coverage (45.0&nbsp;percent) was public administration.<sup><a href="#mn11" id="mt11">11</a></sup> The retail trade industry sector offered vision coverage to 14.6&nbsp;percent of its workers, the lowest sector-level access rate.<sup><a href="#mn12" id="mt12">12</a></sup></p>
<div class="table" id="table4">
<table>
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table&nbsp;4. </span>Percentage of workers with access to health insurance, by coverage type and selected <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sector and subsector,&nbsp;2013</caption>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:37em"></colgroup>
<colgroup class="shaded" span="1" style="width:4em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="4" style="width:6em"></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th class="stubHeading" scope="col">Industry sector and subsector</th>
<th scope="col"><abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code</th>
<th scope="col">Medical</th>
<th scope="col">Prescription drugs</th>
<th scope="col">Dental</th>
<th scope="col">Vision</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Mining</th>
<td>21</td>
<td>91.5</td>
<td>89.7</td>
<td>62.5</td>
<td>24.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Construction</th>
<td>23</td>
<td>70.8</td>
<td>68.7</td>
<td>39.4</td>
<td>25.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Manufacturing</th>
<td><span class="nobr">31&ndash;33</span></td>
<td>92.3</td>
<td>90.5</td>
<td>63.6</td>
<td>35.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Food, beverage, and tobacco products; textiles; apparel; and leather and allied products</th>
<td>31</td>
<td>87.5</td>
<td>83.8</td>
<td>60.2</td>
<td>34.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Wood, paper, and printing and related support; petroleum and coal; chemicals, plastics, and rubber products; and nonmetallic mineral products</th>
<td>32</td>
<td>90.6</td>
<td>88.8</td>
<td>59.7</td>
<td>26.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Primary metals; fabricated metals; machinery; computer and electronic products; electrical equipment; appliances and components; transportation equipment; furniture; and miscellaneous</th>
<td>33</td>
<td>94.5</td>
<td>93.3</td>
<td>66.3</td>
<td>39.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Wholesale trade</th>
<td>42</td>
<td>86.6</td>
<td>84.6</td>
<td>51.1</td>
<td>28.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retail trade</th>
<td><span class="nobr">44&ndash;45</span></td>
<td>60.7</td>
<td>59.0</td>
<td>37.3</td>
<td>14.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Motor vehicles and parts; furniture and home furnishings; electronics and appliances; building materials and garden equipment and supplies; food and beverages; health and personal care items; gasoline; and clothing</th>
<td>44</td>
<td>56.5</td>
<td>54.9</td>
<td>32.7</td>
<td>17.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Sporting goods; general merchandise; and miscellaneous and nonstore retail</th>
<td>45</td>
<td>68.3</td>
<td>66.6</td>
<td>45.9</td>
<td>9.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Transportation,&nbsp;communications,&nbsp;and&nbsp;utilities</th>
<td><span class="nobr">48&ndash;49</span></td>
<td>84.0</td>
<td>83.2</td>
<td>58.1</td>
<td>31.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Air; rail; water; truck; transit and other ground passenger service; pipelines; scenic and sightseeing tours; and support activities</th>
<td>48</td>
<td>77.6</td>
<td>77.0</td>
<td>51.4</td>
<td>21.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Postal service; couriers and messengers; and warehousing and storage</th>
<td>49</td>
<td>98.1</td>
<td>97.3</td>
<td>73.1</td>
<td>55.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Finance, insurance, and real estate</th>
<td>52</td>
<td>92.5</td>
<td>91.6</td>
<td>75.4</td>
<td>29.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Services</th>
<td>81</td>
<td>49.5</td>
<td>48.3</td>
<td>27.9</td>
<td>16.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Public administration</th>
<td>92</td>
<td>88.3</td>
<td>86.0</td>
<td>62.2</td>
<td>45.0</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td class="firstNote" colspan="6">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on 2013 <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="lastNote" colspan="6">NOTES: The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> does not cover the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector (<abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;11) or the federal government.
<div class="newNote">For consistency with O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015, Table&nbsp;3), certain <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sectors are omitted.</div>
</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
</div>
<p>Table&nbsp;5 covers paid leave and private disability insurance. By definition, access to any leave equals or exceeds access to the specific types of leave. Access to any paid leave ranged from 98.5&nbsp;percent of workers in the manufacturing sector to 79.1&nbsp;percent for services sector workers.<sup><a href="#mn13" id="mt13">13</a></sup> In all industries, sick leave was available to greater shares of workers than was personal leave. More than 90&nbsp;percent of employees in the following industries had access to sick leave: finance, insurance, and real estate (97.7&nbsp;percent); manufacturing (96.6&nbsp;percent), including each of the three <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> subsectors of the manufacturing sector; mining (95.5&nbsp;percent); wholesale trade (92.4&nbsp;percent); and public administration (91.4&nbsp;percent).<sup><a href="#mn14" id="mt14">14</a></sup> Workers in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry sector had the most access to personal leave (67.2&nbsp;percent)<sup><a href="#mn15" id="mt15">15</a></sup> and those in the construction sector had the least (18.6&nbsp;percent).</p>
<p>Access to <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> benefits may delay or lower the likelihood of a worker's application for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits. For many workers, <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> might be the only potential source of income if a disability requires an extended absence from work. However, if a worker has enrolled in employer-sponsored disability insurance, he or she may choose not to apply for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr>. In 2013, employees in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry sector had the highest rate of access to both <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance (72.4&nbsp;percent and 74.5&nbsp;percent, respectively). Employees in the construction, services, and retail trade industry sectors had among the lowest rates of access to <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance.</p>
<div class="table" id="table5">
<table>
<caption><span class="tableNumber">Table&nbsp;5. </span>Percentage of workers with access to paid leave and private disability insurance, by type and selected <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sector and subsector,&nbsp;2013</caption>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:37em"></colgroup>
<colgroup class="shaded" span="1" style="width:4em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="4" style="width:5em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:5.5em"></colgroup>
<colgroup span="1" style="width:5.5em"></colgroup>
<thead>
<tr>
<th rowspan="2" class="stubHeading" scope="colgroup">Industry sector and subsector</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code</th>
<th colspan="4" class="spanner" scope="colgroup">Paid leave</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> insurance</th>
<th rowspan="2" scope="colgroup"><abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope="col">Any&nbsp;<sup>a</sup></th>
<th scope="col">Sick</th>
<th scope="col">Personal</th>
<th scope="col">Other&nbsp;<sup>b</sup></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Mining</th>
<td>21</td>
<td>96.0</td>
<td>95.5</td>
<td>21.1</td>
<td>83.6</td>
<td>60.3</td>
<td>60.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Construction</th>
<td>23</td>
<td>86.7</td>
<td>72.9</td>
<td>18.6</td>
<td>51.3</td>
<td>29.2</td>
<td>18.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Manufacturing</th>
<td><span class="nobr">31&ndash;33</span></td>
<td>98.5</td>
<td>96.6</td>
<td>38.1</td>
<td>87.8</td>
<td>63.2</td>
<td>44.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Food, beverage, and tobacco products; textiles; apparel; and leather and allied products</th>
<td>31</td>
<td>95.9</td>
<td>92.9</td>
<td>27.3</td>
<td>77.9</td>
<td>56.5</td>
<td>31.4</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Wood, paper, and printing and related support; petroleum and coal; chemicals, plastics, and rubber products; and nonmetallic mineral products</th>
<td>32</td>
<td>(X)</td>
<td>97.0</td>
<td>35.4</td>
<td>87.4</td>
<td>62.1</td>
<td>46.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Primary metals; fabricated metals; machinery; computer and electronic products; electrical equipment; appliances and components; transportation equipment; furniture; and miscellaneous</th>
<td>33</td>
<td>(X)</td>
<td>97.6</td>
<td>42.6</td>
<td>91.1</td>
<td>65.9</td>
<td>47.9</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Wholesale trade</th>
<td>42</td>
<td>95.7</td>
<td>92.4</td>
<td>38.9</td>
<td>81.5</td>
<td>50.4</td>
<td>44.2</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Retail trade</th>
<td><span class="nobr">44&ndash;45</span></td>
<td>80.8</td>
<td>71.2</td>
<td>30.7</td>
<td>64.4</td>
<td>26.1</td>
<td>14.6</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Motor vehicles and parts; furniture and home furnishings; electronics and appliances; building materials and garden equipment and supplies; food and beverages; health and personal care items; gasoline; and clothing</th>
<td>44</td>
<td>83.3</td>
<td>72.9</td>
<td>26.5</td>
<td>62.9</td>
<td>29.5</td>
<td>17.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Sporting goods; general merchandise; and miscellaneous and nonstore retail</th>
<td>45</td>
<td>76.0</td>
<td>68.2</td>
<td>38.5</td>
<td>67.3</td>
<td>19.9</td>
<td>10.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Transportation,&nbsp;communications,&nbsp;and&nbsp;utilities</th>
<td><span class="nobr">48&ndash;49</span></td>
<td>94.4</td>
<td>89.4</td>
<td>47.8</td>
<td>82.5</td>
<td>47.1</td>
<td>36.1</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Air; rail; water; truck; transit and other ground passenger service; pipelines; scenic and sightseeing tours; and support activities</th>
<td>48</td>
<td>93.0</td>
<td>86.3</td>
<td>35.0</td>
<td>77.1</td>
<td>37.0</td>
<td>32.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub1" scope="row">Postal service; couriers and messengers; and warehousing and storage</th>
<td>49</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>96.4</td>
<td>76.3</td>
<td>94.7</td>
<td>69.8</td>
<td>44.0</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Finance, insurance, and real estate</th>
<td>52</td>
<td>(X)</td>
<td>97.7</td>
<td>67.2</td>
<td>95.1</td>
<td>72.4</td>
<td>74.5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Services</th>
<td>81</td>
<td>79.1</td>
<td>72.6</td>
<td>30.2</td>
<td>57.3</td>
<td>27.4</td>
<td>17.3</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th class="stub0" scope="rowgroup">Public administration</th>
<td>92</td>
<td>93.7</td>
<td>91.4</td>
<td>53.7</td>
<td>93.1</td>
<td>26.0</td>
<td>30.2</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
<tfoot>
<tr>
<td class="firstNote" colspan="8">SOURCE: Authors' calculations based on 2013 <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="note" colspan="8">NOTES: The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> does not cover the agriculture, forestry, and fishing sector (<abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;11) or the federal government.
<div class="newNote">For consistency with O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015, Table&nbsp;3), certain <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sectors are omitted.</div>
<div class="newNote">(X)&nbsp;= suppressed by <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> to prevent possible disclosure of information about specific respondents.</div>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="note" colspan="8">a. Holiday, vacation, sick, personal, or other leave.</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td class="lastNote" colspan="8">b. Leave for funerals, military service, or jury duty.</td>
</tr>
</tfoot>
</table>
</div>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Our analysis of the 2013 <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> provides descriptive statistics on the availability of employer-sponsored health insurance and paid leave benefits by <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> industry sector. We find that greater proportions of state and local government employees had access to medical, dental, and vision benefits than private-sector workers, yet the latter had greater access to <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> insurance. Access to certain types of benefits varied widely across industries. Among benefit types, vision coverage, <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> insurance, and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance were the least commonly offered. We believe this finding is important because workers might have to rely on <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> or <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> benefits to retain employment while addressing a temporary health-related work limitation. If such benefits are not widely available, workers may be more likely to apply for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits. This may account for higher-than-average <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> application rates among workers in certain industries. The potential relationship between the availability of <abbr class="spell">STD</abbr> and <abbr class="spell">LTD</abbr> insurance and <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> application is worth further exploration.</p>
<p>This note provides preliminary steps toward understanding the potential relationship between workers' access to health and leave benefits and their likelihood of <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> application. Between O'Leary, Walker, and Roessel (2015) and this study, the statistics reveal differences by industry in both the access to employer-provided benefits and the prevalence of <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiary status. Whether those two differences are coincidental or related is a subject for future studies.</p>
<div id="notes">
<h2>Notes</h2>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt1" id="mn1">1</a> Under certain circumstances, family members of workers may also be eligible for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> benefits.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt2" id="mn2">2</a> The Family and Medical Leave Act (<abbr class="spell">FMLA</abbr>) of 1993 requires employers to offer leave to qualifying employees, but such leave can be unpaid. The law permits an employee to elect, or the employer to require the employee, to use accrued paid leave (such as vacation or sick leave) for some or all of the <abbr class="spell">FMLA</abbr>-covered period.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt3" id="mn3">3</a> The <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> is the standard system used by the federal statistical agencies of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. For a full description, see Census Bureau&nbsp;(2018).</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt4" id="mn4">4</a> Not all public-sector employees are covered under Social Security. For example, federal employees hired before 1984 are covered under the Civil Service Retirement System and not Social Security (unless they opted to convert to the Federal Employee Retirement System) and thus may not be eligible for <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr>. This may partially explain the low proportion of <abbr class="spell">DI</abbr> beneficiaries who had worked in public administration.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt5" id="mn5">5</a> The <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr> omits the federal government because the Office of Personnel Management (<abbr class="spell">OPM</abbr>, the federal &ldquo;employer&rdquo; agency) uses <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> data to determine federal compensation costs (including benefits). Thus, a <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr> survey of <abbr class="spell">OPM</abbr>'s costs would essentially collect <abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr>' own&nbsp;data.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt6" id="mn6">6</a> For more information on the <abbr class="spell">NCS</abbr>, see <a href="https://www.bls.gov/ebs/home.htm">https://www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm</a>.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt7" id="mn7">7</a> &ldquo;Industry sector and subsector&rdquo; is <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> nomenclature; this use of &ldquo;sector&rdquo; should not be confused with the broader &ldquo;public sector&rdquo; and &ldquo;private sector&rdquo; contexts.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt8" id="mn8">8</a> More than 98&nbsp;percent of workers in the transportation, communications, and utilities industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;49 had access to medical coverage, as did 94.5&nbsp;percent of workers in the manufacturing industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;33.</p>
<p>&ensp;<a href="#mt9" id="mn9">9</a> Almost 57&nbsp;percent of workers in the retail trade industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;44 had access to medical coverage.</p>
<p><a href="#mt10" id="mn10">10</a> More than 97&nbsp;percent of workers in the transportation, communications, and utilities industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;49 had access to prescription drug coverage, as did 93.3&nbsp;percent of workers in the manufacturing industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;33.</p>
<p><a href="#mt11" id="mn11">11</a> About 55&nbsp;percent of workers in the transportation, communications, and utilities industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;49 had access to vision coverage.</p>
<p><a href="#mt12" id="mn12">12</a> Only 9.9&nbsp;percent of workers in the retail trade industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;45 had access to vision coverage.</p>
<p><a href="#mt13" id="mn13">13</a> Paid leave of any kind was available to only 76.0&nbsp;percent of workers in the retail trade industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;45.</p>
<p><a href="#mt14" id="mn14">14</a> Sick leave also was offered to 96.4&nbsp;percent of workers in the transportation, communications, and utilities industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;49.</p>
<p><a href="#mt15" id="mn15">15</a> About 76&nbsp;percent of workers in the transportation, communications, and utilities industry subsector of <abbr class="spell">NAICS</abbr> code&nbsp;49 had access to paid personal leave.</p>
</div>
<div id="references">
<h2>References</h2>
<p>[<abbr class="spell">BLS</abbr>] Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2013. &ldquo;Employment Projections: <span class="nobr">2012&ndash;2022.</span>&rdquo; <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12192013.htm">https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/ecopro_12192013.htm</a>.</p>
<p>Census Bureau. 2018. &ldquo;North American Industry Classification System.&rdquo; <a href="https://www.census.gov/naics/">https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/index.html</a>.</p>
<p>Dement, John&nbsp;M., Carol Epling, Julie Joyner, and Kyle Cavanaugh. 2015. &ldquo;Impacts of Workplace Health Promotion and Wellness Programs on Health Care Utilization and Costs: Results From an Academic Workplace.&rdquo; <i>Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine</i> 57(11): <span class="nobr">1159&ndash;1169.</span></p>
<p>Du Bois, Marc, and Peter Donceel. 2008. &ldquo;A Screening Questionnaire to Predict No Return to Work Within 3&nbsp;Months for Low Back Pain Claimants.&rdquo; <i>European Spine Journal</i> 17(3): <span class="nobr">380&ndash;385.</span></p>
<p>Employee Benefit Research Institute. 2011. <i><abbr>EBRI</abbr> Databook on Employee Benefits.</i> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: <abbr>EBRI</abbr>.</p>
<p>Livermore, Gina, David Stapleton, and Meghan O'Toole. 2011. &ldquo;Health Care Costs Are a Key Driver of Growth in Federal and State Assistance to Working-Age People with Disabilities.&rdquo; <i>Health Affairs</i> 30(9): <span class="nobr">1664&ndash;1672.</span></p>
<p>Livermore, Gina, David Wittenburg, and David Neumark. 2014. &ldquo;Finding Alternatives to Disability Benefit Receipt.&rdquo; <i><abbr>IZA</abbr> Journal of Labor Policy</i> 3(1): 14.</p>
<p>O'Leary, Paul, Elisa Walker, and Emily Roessel. 2015. &ldquo;<a href="/policy/docs/issuepapers/ip2015-01.html">Social Security Disability Insurance at Age&nbsp;60: Does It Still Reflect Congress' Original Intent?</a>&rdquo; Issue Paper No.&nbsp;<span class="nobr">2015-01.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>.</p>
<p>Pierce, Brooks. 1999. &ldquo;Using the National Compensation Survey to Predict Wage Rates.&rdquo; <i>Compensation and Working Conditions</i> 4(4): <span class="nobr">8&ndash;16.</span></p>
<p>Salkever, David&nbsp;S., Howard Goldman, Mohankumar Purushothaman, and Judith Shinogle. 2000. &ldquo;Disability Management, Employee Health and Fringe Benefits, and Long-Term-Disability Claims for Mental Disorders: An Empirical Exploration.&rdquo; <i>The Milbank Quarterly</i> 78(1): <span class="nobr">79&ndash;114.</span></p>
<p>Schimmel Hyde, Jody, and Gina&nbsp;A. Livermore. 2016. &ldquo;Gaps in Timely Access to Care Among Workers by Disability Status: Will the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act Reforms Change the Landscape?&rdquo; <i>Journal of Disability Policy Studies</i> 26(4): <span class="nobr">221&ndash;231.</span></p>
<p>[<abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>] Social Security Administration. 2018. <i>Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2017.</i> <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr> Publication <abbr title="Number">No.</abbr>&nbsp;<span class="nobr">13-11826.</span> Washington, <abbr class="spell">DC</abbr>: <abbr class="spell">SSA</abbr>. <a href="/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2017/index.html">https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/di_asr/2017/index.html</a>.</p>
<p>Stapleton, David&nbsp;C., Bonnie&nbsp;L. O'Day, Gina&nbsp;A. Livermore, and Andrew&nbsp;J. Imparato. 2006. &ldquo;Dismantling the Poverty Trap: Disability Policy for the Twenty-First Century.&rdquo; <i>The Milbank Quarterly</i> 84(4): <span class="nobr">701&ndash;732.</span></p>
</div>
</div>
</article>
<footer><div id="footer">
<div class="important-info"><h4>Important Information:</h4>
<ul><li><a href="/agency/">About Us</a></li>
<li><a href="/accessibility/">Accessibility</a></li>
<li><a href="/foia/">FOIA</a></li>
<li><a href="/open/">Open Government</a></li>
<li><a href="/agency/glossary/">Glossary</a></li>
<li><a href="/privacy/">Privacy</a></li>
<li><a href="https://oig.ssa.gov/report/">Report Fraud, Waste or Abuse</a></li>
<li><a href="/agency/websitepolicies.html">Website Policies</a></li></ul>
</div>
<p class="align-center margin-top">This website is produced and published at U.S. taxpayer expense.</p>
</div></footer>
<!-- SSA INTERNET BODY SCRIPTS -->
<script src="/policy/js/rspa.doc.js"></script>
<script src="/policy/js/rspa-shared.js"></script>
<script src="/framework/js/ssa.internet.body.js"></script>
</body></html>
Reference in a new issue View git blame Copy permalink