Black box household clarification

The assessment of the degree of disability for persons working in the household by the disability insurance (IV) often resembles a black box. While the degree of disability for employed persons is determined by comparing their income and thus - to a certain extent - ensuring transparency, the method of activity comparison is used for non-employed and partially employed persons. This blog post provides a rough overview of critical points in the assessment of disability in the household. A detailed discussion of the topic will be published at the end of March in the Social Insurance Law 2025 yearbook.

People who are not gainfully employed and who work in the household do not suffer any direct loss of income as a result of their disability. Instead, the IV assesses their restrictions in their previous area of activity. The activity comparison method is used here. A comprehensive assessment in the insured person's household is often the only clarification measure taken by the IV. This assessment includes a survey of the functional restrictions in the household and an evaluation of the duty to minimise loss and the possibilities for support from family members. The Federal Supreme Court considers this professionally qualified household assessment to be sufficient to determine the degree of disability (BGer, 21.4.2020, 8C_185/2020, E. 4.2.2; BGer, 28.5.20214, 8C_817/2013, E. 5.1).

The duty to minimise damage plays a key role in the assessment of disability carried out according to this method. This states that the insured person and their family members must do everything reasonable to minimise the restrictions in the household. Assistance from family members goes beyond the usual extent, but this is not always feasible in reality.

The assessment of disability in the household according to the activity comparison method must be criticised for several reasons. Firstly, the unequal treatment of employed persons and persons working in the household should be pointed out. When comparing the income of employed persons, there are possibilities for correction in favour of the insured persons through the deduction for suffering. On the other hand, the obligation to minimise losses for persons working in the household and their family members always works to the disadvantage of the insured person and leads to a lower degree of disability.

The imprecise determination of the amount of work in the household must also be criticised. The percentage weighting of the individual household areas does not provide an exact indication of the actual amount of time a person has to spend on the individual household tasks. The SLFS tables could be helpful here, as they provide an indication of the time spent in different household sizes. It would therefore make sense to determine the time spent in the household according to the SLFS tables in order to plausibilise the extent of the reasonable duty to mitigate damage by family members.

The household clarification ultimately leads to a questionable mixture of factual and legal issues. The investigators answer both factual and legal questions when, for example, they comment on the scope of the duty to minimise damages. This leads to a mixture of factual findings and legal judgements.

While medical reports play a central role in assessing the disability of gainfully employed persons, these are usually lacking in household assessments. However, a medical assessment of the functional impairments would also be necessary here in order to ensure a solid basis for determining the duty to minimise damages. This would also contribute to a clear separation of factual and legal issues.

The above criticism shows that the current practice is not satisfactory. The report on the budget clarification is based on abstract assumptions and the correction instruments (duty to minimise loss) only work to the disadvantage of the insured person. The assessment of disability for persons working in the household requires a clear methodology and transparency. A strict separation of factual and legal issues and the inclusion of medical reports or the SAKE tables could help to ensure procedural fairness and promote equal treatment of all insured persons. A standardised method is needed to make the results of the clarification verifiable and comprehensible.