Logo image
Back
Compensation for Occupational Disease: Hidden Agendas
Journal article   Peer reviewed

Compensation for Occupational Disease: Hidden Agendas

Sherry Brandt-Rauf and Paul Brandt-Rauf
Health affairs (Millwood, Va.), v 7(4)
01 Oct 1988
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.7.4.73
PMID: 2976020
Featured in Collection :   UN Sustainable Development Goals @ Drexel

Abstract

Bills Common law Compensation plans Injuries Litigation Occupational diseases Public policy Workers compensation
The values implicit in the long-standing debate over the mechanisms for compensating occupational disease victims are investigated. Before workers compensation, injured employees sought remedies against employers in court in tort actions, but they seldom won their lawsuits. Today, all the US states have workers compensation plans to compensate occupational disease victims. The ultimate decision to include occupational disease into the compensation framework, which had been designed mainly for injury, has disappointed those seeking an economically efficient way to deal with disease and those searching for a fair way. The debate over House Resolutions 1626 and 3090 exemplifies the mode of debate throughout the history of workers compensation. Comments on these 2 bills are in 2 categories -- those raising considerations based on fairness and those resting on economic efficiency. The debate over whether to treat disease and injury alike provides only one example of how hidden agendas confound decisions in this area.

Metrics

13 Record Views
1 citations in Web of Science
2 citations in Scopus

Details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This publication has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#3 Good Health and Well-Being
#10 Reduced Inequalities
#1 No Poverty

InCites Highlights

Data related to this publication, from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool:

Web of Science research areas
Health Care Sciences & Services
Health Policy & Services
Logo image