MORAL HAZARD AND WORKPLACE ABSENTEEISM Moral arises whenever the difficult-to-monitor activities of workplace participants, who are protected by disability systems, increase the insurance liability of firms' owners. The owners of profit-maximizing firms would like to write enforceable contracts that make the whole disability process objective in the sense that it provides only the appropriate level of medical care. Of course, such contracts are difficult and therefore costly to monitor. Hence, the costs of monitoring workers, administrators, and health care providers reduce the amount of monitoring that firms would undertake in a full information world. Those participating in the disability process realize that this informational asymmetry exists and can turn the situation to their advantage. Moral increases workplace absenteeism when such informational asymmetries are used to increase the frequency or duration of workers' compensation claims. These additional are known as hazard because the costs of extra usage (above that in a full information world) are borne by all the workers and owners of the company indirectly through higher cost for health and insurance benefits (with offsetting reductions in wages(1) and possibly company profitability), while the benefits are captured by individual participants. Unfortunately, since all face the same situation, individuals have some incentive to use the system more than they would have if they were paying with their own money, or if their behavior could be monitored without cost. Overwhelmingly, the extant literature indicates that workers respond to economic incentives provided by workers' compensation disability payments.(2) In the absence of moral hazard, a change in benefits would not cause a systematic change in the claims. However, claim severity and frequency tend to increase as benefits increase and as the waiting period prior to the receipt of wage benefits (a de facto deductible) falls.(3) Despite this evidence, the potential impact of moral on real productivity has been ignored because moral is primarily seen as a change in the incentive to report an accident, shifting costs from one type of employee benefit to another. For example, an employee may claim that a given condition arose from a job injury and seek workers' compensation benefits because their real health condition (broadly defined) does not qualify for short-term disability compensation. An extreme case of claims reporting moral is overt fraud in which a worker facing a pending layoff injury benefits when no injury was incurred, either on or off the job. In both of these examples, employee shift costs: in the first case, costs are shifted between group health/paid sick time and workers' compensation medical/indemnity; and in the second case, costs are shifted between unemployment insurance and workers' compensation indemnity. While such benefits-induced cost-shifting may not have much impact on real output, increased workplace absenteeism will lower output to the extent that the firm specific capital is important. As statutory benefits increase, absenteeism rises with a concomitant loss of firm specific capital. This loss in firm specific capital causes output to fall. While firm-specific capital can not be directly observed and estimated, the impact of lost firm-specific capital on output can be inferred indirectly. Since higher statutory benefits increase absenteeism (see prior research cited in footnote 3), evidence that higher statutory benefits also lower output provides indirect evidence on the importance of lost, firm-specific capital. This paper measures changes in output as statutory benefits rise by embedding the benefits replacement rate in a Cobb-Douglas production function. In the next section, prior research on the importance of firm specific capital is discussed. In the third section, the effect of higher disability pay on value-added in manufacturing, using an industry longitudinal sample, is estimated. …
Read full abstract