Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The study shows large differences in perceived fairness between two different compensation systems and an association between fairness and health. These findings are politically important because compensation processes are designed to improve recovery. Lower perceived fairness in NSW may have been caused by potential adversarial aspects of the scheme, such as liability assessment, medical assessments, dealing with a third party for-profit insurance agency, or financial insecurity due to lump sum payments at settlement. This study should encourage an evidence informed discussion about how to reduce anti-therapeutic aspects in the compensation process in order to improve the injured person's health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Elbers et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: