Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences

We show the extent of errors made in the award of disability insurance using matched survey-administrative data. False rejections (Type I errors) are widespread and characterized by large gender differences. Women with a severe, work-limiting, permanent impairment are 20 percentage points more likely to be rejected than men, controlling for the type of health condition, occupation, and a host of demographic characteristics. The differences by gender arise because women are more likely to be assessed as being able to find other work than observationally equivalent men. Despite this, after rejection, women with a self-reported work limitation do not return to work, compared to rejected women without a work limitation. We investigate whether these gender differences in Type I errors are due to women being in better health than men, to women having lower pain thresholds, to women applying more readily for disability insurance, or to women applying with harder-to-verify work limitations. None of these explanations are consistent with the data. By contrast, we find evidence suggesting that there are different acceptance thresholds for men and women.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Political Economy
Published
2025-04-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1086/736207
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Retirement, Disability, and Employment
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.18
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences

Luigi Pistaferri, Hamish Low
2 citations
Journal of Political Economy
Retirement, Disability, and Employment
11.18
article

Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences

Luigi Pistaferri, Hamish Low
article en
2 citations

Abstract

We show the extent of errors made in the award of disability insurance using matched survey-administrative data. False rejections (Type I errors) are widespread and characterized by large gender differences. Women with a severe, work-limiting, permanent impairment are 20 percentage points more likely to be rejected than men, controlling for the type of health condition, occupation, and a host of demographic characteristics. The differences by gender arise because women are more likely to be assessed as being able to find other work than observationally equivalent men. Despite this, after rejection, women with a self-reported work limitation do not return to work, compared to rejected women without a work limitation. We investigate whether these gender differences in Type I errors are due to women being in better health than men, to women having lower pain thresholds, to women applying more readily for disability insurance, or to women applying with harder-to-verify work limitations. None of these explanations are consistent with the data. By contrast, we find evidence suggesting that there are different acceptance thresholds for men and women.

Journal of Political EconomyVol. 133(9)
University of Oxford (GB), Centre for Economic Policy Research (GB), Stanford University (US)
Gender equality
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Retirement, Disability, and Employment
11.18
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Disability Insurance: Error Rates and Gender Differences — Luigi Pistaferri, Hamish Low · Journal of Political Economy (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS