The new “right to try” policy from the UK government seems simple. They want to let disabled people try to find work without jeopardizing the benefits that they have come to rely on. But this idea raises a deeper question that the United States has long confronted:
Is the fear of losing benefits really the biggest barrier preventing disabled people from entering the workforce? On the surface, the policy is smart. If you might lose your economic safety net by taking a job, why would anyone even take that risk?
The UK’s new policy aims to reduce that stress, helping people find work. This encourages a higher degree of independence and participation, in theory. But when you take a look at the U.S., you can see the drawbacks and costs of such an approach.
There is a similar “right to try” in the United States, the kind that is reflected in Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI). People can work for several months without losing benefits through a trial work period. It’s basically the same concept: reduce risk, promote effort. And yet employment rates for disabled Americans remain stubbornly low.
Why is that? One of the reasons is what happens after the trial period. After the protections are taken away, there are strict income limits. Earn a little too much, and benefits may be gone, a phenomenon often called the “benefits cliff.” However, the looming cliff discourages many people from fully committing to employment, even if they can begin.
The problem in the U.S. is even more profound, especially for people who rely on Medicaid. For many disabled Americans, Medicaid is more than health insurance. It covers crucial services that assist with independent living and work , known as home and community-based services.
However, to qualify for Medicaid, people must stay within strict income and asset limits. In most cases, people can’t save more than a couple of thousand dollars, so it’s hard, if not impossible, to start a retirement fund or have an emergency fund.
This situation results in a second, less obvious “benefits trap.” It’s not just that you try a job; it’s that you can’t get ahead. You can accept a raise or a new job, which can push someone over the limit and jeopardize necessary services. Many people limit their income or miss out on chances to make more money. The system not only discourages risk but can also punish success.
In reality, the UK’s “right to try” strategy only addresses one part of the larger problem. The American experience demonstrates that even when short-term programs work,, long-term gains can be limited by the nature of benefits.
A better view emerges from another perspective. As noted in The Atlantic article “Why Is It So Hard to Find Jobs for Disabled Workers?”, the real challenges often aren’t benefits-related ones. They are about jobs. In the U.S., disabled people face persistent structural barriers: discrimination by employers, inaccessible workplaces,and limited flexibility, . Even getting a job can be difficult, no matter how qualified someone is. Here, the concern is not just that people are afraid to take up jobs; it’s that the labor market doesn’t always meet their needs.
There’s an ironic twist in the system as well. Getting disability benefits is often an arduous process for millions who try to qualify. It involves providing medical documentation, denials, and appeals.
By the time someone gets the support they need, they have essentially demonstrated that they can’t work under the present circumstances. It’s much more difficult to actually ask them to jeopardize those hard-fought benefits for an uncertain job. All of which complicates the story of the UK’s plan to give people the “right to try.”
It’s not so much that the policy is ineffective, as it is the opposite. Reducing risk and providing people with more flexibility is an important step forward. But the American experience suggests that it is only one piece of the puzzle.
If jobs are not available, if employers hesitate in hiring, if jobs are insecure or unsuitable – then it wouldn’t actually matter if you make the process of applying any easier. If benefit systems continue penalizing greater earnings or savings, even the most successful employees can be left feeling hopeless.
What matters most in these two countries is what happens after that first step. Do people find jobs that match what they need? Are workplaces developed with accessibility in mind? How do they increase their hours, accept raises, or save for the future without suddenly losing crucial support?
And without those questions answered, policies like the “right to try” could solve the wrong proble. The real difficulty isn’t getting disabled people to try to work. It’s creating a system in which that chance can really pay off, and in which success doesn’t come with new risks.
Sources:
Khazan, Olga. “How a Program Meant to Help Disabled Workers Failed Them Instead.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 3 Dec. 2015, http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/03/why-is-it-so-hard-to-find-jobs-for-disabled-workers/388796/.
Murray, Jessica. “Ministers Unveil ‘right to Try’ Plan to Help Disabled People Find Work.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 8 Apr. 2026, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/apr/09/ministers-unveil-right-to-try-plan-to-help-disabled-people-find-work.
Romig , Kathleen, et al. “The Case for Updating SSI Asset Limits.” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 26 June 2023, http://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/the-case-for-updating-ssi-asset-limits?fbclid=IwAR0wZj-zM_VqbPoQ4RV3WZUbOBCKVbnxXlV9lJeWo4GLEVAx2EomA5klzoo_aem_AfEqv7yxyHvw-DLrwMkFZ4LovFDDWokEDXSN5qdX6LwdCd85JZbF0gQkswCdVv1LpVA.
Shapiro, Joseph. “These Disabled People Tried to Play by the Rules. It Cost Them Their Federal Benefits.” NPR, NPR, 8 June 2024, http://www.npr.org/2024/06/08/g-s1-3475/social-security-ssi-asset-limits.