Hemmeter and Bailey 2016 — Earnings after DI Evidence from Full Medical Continuing Disability Reviews

disability-insurancecontinuing-disability-reviewexit-marginearningsemploymentsubstantial-gainful-activityCDRprogram-integritymedical-improvementSSAupper-bound-methodologyreturn-to-work

Summary

Hemmeter and Bailey (2016) examine the earnings of disability insurance (DI) beneficiaries who undergo a Full Medical Review (FMR) — a continuing disability review (CDR) conducted by state Disability Determination Services — comparing those whose eligibility is "ceased" (terminated after medical review) to those "continued." Using Social Security Administration (SSA) administrative records linked to earnings data (1998–2008 FMR cohort, N = 2,124,835 DI workers), they estimate post-cessation earnings as an upper bound on what continued beneficiaries would earn if their benefits were similarly terminated. The majority of ceased beneficiaries work after program exit, but average earnings are low (~$13,000/year) and few sustain earnings above standard sufficiency thresholds across all five post-FMR years.

Key Claims

Concepts Introduced or Extended

Entities Mentioned

Quotes

"While over half of ceased DI workers earn above the SGA level or the individual poverty threshold in at least one of the 5 years after program exit, only about 20% consistently earn over SGA or the poverty threshold in all post-program years."

"Increased program integrity, while appropriate for Social Security from a fiduciary perspective, may also increase the number of people requiring other supports."

My Take

This paper makes a clean methodological contribution by extending Bound's (1989) comparison-group approach to the exit margin — something rarely done because post-cessation earnings data for a large CDR population requires SSA administrative access. The ~43 pp upper bound is striking but must be interpreted carefully: the FMR population is pre-selected by SSA's profiling model for high likelihood of medical improvement, making it non-representative of the full CDR population. The paper's honest accounting of what expanding CDRs would yield — substantially worse outcomes for marginal cases — directly challenges the "more CDRs = proportional savings" assumption implicit in program integrity advocacy.