Trends in poverty risks among people with and without limiting-longstanding illness by employment status in Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom during the current economic recession – a comparative study

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious studies have found higher employment rates and lower risk of relative poverty among people with chronic illness in the Nordic countries than in the rest of Europe. However, Nordic countries have not been immune to the general rise in poverty in many welfare states in recent decades. This study analysed the trends in poverty risks among a particularly vulnerable group in the labour market: people with limiting-longstanding illness (LLSI), examining the experience of those with and without employment, and compared to healthy people in employment in Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom.MethodsCross-sectional survey data from EU-SILC (European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions) on people aged 25–64 years in Sweden, Denmark and the United Kingdom (UK) were analysed between 2005 and 2010. Age-standardised rates of poverty risks (<60% of national median equalised disposable income) were calculated. Odds ratios (ORs) of poverty risks were estimated using logistic regression.ResultsIn all three countries, non-employed people with LLSI had considerably higher prevalence of poverty risk than employed people with or without LLSI. Rates of poverty risk in the UK for non-employed people with LLSI were higher than in Sweden and Denmark. Over time, the rates of poverty risk for Swedish non-employed people with LLSI in 2005 (13.8% CI=9.7-17.8) had almost doubled by 2010 (26.5% CI=19.9-33.1). For both sexes, the inequalities in poverty risks between non-employed people with LLSI and healthy employed people were much higher in the UK than in Sweden and Denmark. Over time, however, the odds of poverty risk among British non-employed men and women with LLSI compared with their healthy employed counterparts declined. The opposite trend was seen for Swedish men: the odds of poverty risk for non-employed men with LLSI compared with healthy employed men increased from OR 2.8 (CIs=1.6-4.7) in 2005 to OR 5.3 (CIs=3.2-8.9) in 2010.ConclusionsThe increasing poverty risks among the non-employed people with LLSI in Sweden over time are of concern from a health equity perspective. The role of recent Swedish social policy changes should be further investigated.

Do ‘flexicurity’ Policies Work for People With Low Education and Health Problems? A Comparison of Labour Market Policies and Employment Rates in Denmark, The Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom 1990–2010

“…This has been noted in Sweden. 41 However, some Table 2. Changes in the proportion with low education and limiting longstanding illness in the study population.…”

“…This has been noted in Sweden. 41 However, some evidence suggests that a benefit system with a high level of adequacy, combined with effective ALMPs, can improve employment rates 49 rather than act as a disincentive.…”

“…Britain has had one of the most deregulated labor markets in Europe for more than 25 years, characterized by low social protection and high labor market flexibility. 41 Furthermore, the prevailing neoliberal ideology created an environment for further labor market deregulation and a focus on individual over government responsibility.…”

Material deprivation and health: a longitudinal study

“…This variable is obtained from an item directed to all persons who report that they have a chronic/longstanding illness or condition: “Does this illness or disability (Do any of these illnesses or disabilities) limit your activities in any way?” Yes is coded 1 and no is coded 0. Some studies apply this item as a proxy of severe health impairments or chronic illness [ 23 , 28 , 29 ]. The intention of the item is to measure whether people are hampered in their usual activities by any ongoing physical or mental health problem, illness or disability [ 27 ].…”

Health inequalities – a challenge for the social investment welfare state

“…It is in particular serious mental and addiction disorders that tend to have these serious long-term social consequences. But even for a much larger group of people with different kinds of limiting illnesses it has, at least in Sweden, been found that the cuts in benefits and protection have increased the poverty rates in those groups (Falck et al, 2013).…”