I don't think we really know, to be honest. First of all, the category of episodic disability is a very multi-dimensional one, a very complicated one. There are a variety of trajectories. For some people with episodic disability, their experiences of progressive trajectory have declined. Others are actually experiencing a trajectory of recovery. Others are stable. Some are visible. Some are invisible.
In that regard, sir, it might be a function of what the interaction is between the person and his or her physician: whether the person has a family physician or obtains a medical practitioner who will complete the certificate, and the understanding that this professional has of what the person's condition may or may not be. I think we heard some testimony here this morning about how sometimes that's not always readily apparent or readily at hand.
Many professionals do not understand these conditions—not just policy-makers, governments or bureaucrats, but medical practitioners. We see that with the DTC. We've seen that for many years. I think part of it is the awareness not only of employers and employment, but also of the people who are gatekeeping at the front door of these programs who assist individuals in completing the necessary documentation.
People could have a range of experiences in trying to explain what it is that they have, get it acknowledged, and then awkwardly try to squeeze their very complicated, multi-dimensional experience into some forms. That's why I think the devil's in the details. Part of it is looking at how we experience that encounter across the so-called “front desk”, as we used to call it, on service delivery, whether it's online forms or what have you.
That's a vague answer, but I think part of it is that we don't have a solid enough understanding of that experience beyond various organizations' members and anecdotally. In terms of good statistical analysis, that work is being done and is yet to be done.