http://www.lanternandruneconsulting.com/

Lantern & Rune Consulting, Columbus, OH (2026)

08/09/2026

One of the most common fears I hear from people receiving public benefits is this:

"There's no way to get ahead."

That feeling often comes from worrying that increasing one source of income will automatically cause other benefits to disappear.

This week's case study looks at someone wondering whether claiming a higher Social Security benefit through a former spouse could affect her other benefits.

The truth?

There isn't enough information to answer her question—and that's actually the lesson.

Benefits like Social Security, SNAP, Medicaid, and Medicare don't all follow the same rules. A change in one program can affect another, but it doesn't automatically mean you'll lose everything. Sometimes the outcome is exactly what you feared. Sometimes it's much better than you expected.

That's why I always encourage people to be cautious when comparing their situation to someone else's online. Two people can ask nearly identical questions and receive completely different answers because of one important detail.

The goal isn't simply to maximize one benefit.

The goal is to understand how all of your benefits work together so you can make the decision that provides the greatest overall stability.

Have you ever seen advice online that sounded right—until you realized it didn't actually apply to your situation?

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

07/22/2026

Over the past few weeks, I've been trying prepare for my own Continuing Disability Review (CDR).

Not because I've received one.

Not because I've been told my benefits are changing.

Simply because I'm trying to plan my future.

As someone receiving Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), the decisions I make today are connected to what happens tomorrow. They affect my medical care, my health insurance, whether I should begin seriously looking for work, and how I prepare for the years ahead.

So I did what I encourage other people to do all the time.

I started asking questions.

I pulled out my award letter. It tells me how much I'll receive each month. It tells me my case will be reviewed every three years. But it didn't answer the question I actually had.

I looked online.

Then I called Social Security.

The representative was kind and helpful, but the only information available was that no Continuing Disability Review had been scheduled yet.

While that may be true, it wasn't the information I was looking for.

I wasn't asking whether my review had been scheduled.

I was trying to understand what to expect so I could make informed decisions about my future.

That experience reminded me of something I think about often.

Navigating a system isn't just about whether rules exist. It's also about whether people can find the information they need to make decisions.

There's a difference between having information and having information that answers the question you're actually asking.

I'm not sharing this because I think anyone did something wrong. My experience may not be everyone's experience.

I'm sharing it because uncertainty has a cost.

When you're managing a serious medical condition, thinking about returning to work, or trying to plan for the future, not knowing what to expect can make those decisions even harder.

You don't need every answer.

But you do need enough information to make the next good decision.

That's one of the reasons I started Lantern & Rune.

Understanding systems isn't just about knowing the policies. It's about understanding what those policies mean for the people trying to build their lives around them.

Have you ever run into something similar—where the information you received was technically correct, but it didn't actually answer the question you were trying to ask?

06/30/2026

If you've ever wondered why FMLA doesn't pay you—or why receiving short-term disability benefits doesn't automatically protect your job—you aren't alone.

It's one of the most common points of confusion I see.

The reason is surprisingly simple.

FMLA and short-term disability were never designed to solve the same problem.

Imagine an employee needs surgery.

They suddenly have two separate concerns.

First, they won't be able to work for several weeks.

That creates an income problem.

Second, they don't want to lose their job while they're recovering.

That creates an employment problem.

Those are two different problems.

And over time, different systems were created to address each one.

Long before Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), many employers already offered disability benefits through insurance or salary continuation programs.

Those benefits focused on one question:

How do we replace at least part of an employee's income while they're unable to work?

In 1993, Congress passed the FMLA to address a different gap.

Many employees who needed time away from work were at risk of losing their jobs altogether.

The FMLA created a federal right to unpaid, job-protected leave for many eligible employees.

It answered a different question:

How do we protect someone's job while they need time away from work?

That's why these two systems often work together—but remain separate.

One may replace part of your wages.

The other may protect your employment.

Sometimes employees qualify for both.

Sometimes they qualify for only one.

And sometimes they qualify for neither.

One of the themes you'll see throughout workplace policy is that different systems protect different things.

Workers' compensation addresses work-related injuries.

The ADA addresses discrimination and reasonable accommodations.

Short-term disability addresses income.

FMLA addresses job protection.

Rather than creating one comprehensive workplace leave system, the United States gradually built multiple systems alongside one another, each trying to solve a specific problem.

Understanding that history doesn't make workplace leave less complicated.

But it does help explain why so many employees find themselves navigating several different programs at the same time.

The systems aren't redundant.

They're layered.

And each one exists for a reason.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/29/2026

Myth:
A doctor's note protects your job.

This is one of the most common misconceptions I hear when people are dealing with a medical issue at work.

Many people believe that if their doctor says they cannot work—or recommends restrictions, leave, or an accommodation—that recommendation automatically protects their job.

But a doctor's note and legal job protection are not the same thing.

A doctor's note is an important piece of medical information. It communicates your healthcare provider's assessment of your condition, your limitations, or your need for leave or workplace adjustments.

What it does not do is automatically create legal protections or require an employer to grant every request exactly as written.

Whether a job is protected often depends on factors outside the doctor's office.

It may depend on whether an employee is eligible for protected leave, whether disability laws apply, whether the requested accommodation is reasonable for that particular job, or whether there are other workplace policies or legal requirements that come into play.

That is why two people with the same medical condition—and even the same doctor's note—can have very different experiences at work.

This misunderstanding often creates frustration because employees may not realize there are additional conversations, paperwork, eligibility requirements, or legal protections that need to be explored.

That doesn't mean a doctor's note isn't important.

In many situations, it is an essential part of documenting a medical condition and beginning conversations about leave or accommodations.

But it is just that—a starting point.

The note helps explain the medical situation.

The workplace protections, if they exist, come from employment laws, benefit programs, workplace policies, and the interactive process that follows—not from the note itself.

Understanding that distinction can help people better navigate what often feels like an overwhelming situation.

A doctor's note can open the door to those conversations.

It does not, by itself, determine what happens next.

I’m collecting these myths — and why they persist — on the Lantern & Rune site.
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/28/2026

A question came across my feed recently from someone receiving SSDI and Medicare.

They haven't been released to return to work yet, but they're hoping that one day they will be. Maybe part-time. Maybe eventually back to school.

Their biggest question wasn't about finding a job.

It was this:

"I'm petrified of losing my Medicare."

I see this fear all the time.

For many people with serious medical conditions, health insurance isn't just another benefit. It's the thing that pays for the care that keeps them healthy enough to have a future.

So when people hear stories online about someone losing benefits, or they try to read through all the different work rules and incentives, it's easy to feel like trying to work is simply too risky.

Here's what I would tell someone in this situation.

Don't make decisions based on someone else's story. The rules that applied to them may not apply to you.

Don't let fear make the decision for you either. It's completely understandable to worry about losing healthcare, but that fear deserves good information before it becomes your plan.

And before accepting a job or enrolling in school, sit down with someone who understands disability work incentives. Map out what those choices could mean for your benefits, your healthcare, and your long-term goals.

The challenge is that returning to work while receiving disability benefits isn't governed by one simple rule. It's a patchwork of work incentives, timelines, income limits, and healthcare protections that have been added over decades.

Some of those work incentives can provide important protections for people who are ready to try working again. But those protections only help if people know they exist and understand how to use them.

That's the systems problem I see.

People shouldn't need to become experts in Social Security policy just to feel safe trying to rebuild their lives.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/26/2026

When most people think about FMLA, they picture taking several weeks away from work all at once.

But that's not the only way it can work.

In some situations, eligible employees may be able to take intermittent FMLA.

Intermittent FMLA allows qualifying leave to be taken in smaller increments instead of one continuous block of time.

That might mean taking a few hours off for a medical appointment, missing work during a flare-up of a chronic condition, arriving late for recurring treatments, or taking leave one day at a time as needed.

This type of leave recognizes that not every serious health condition follows a predictable schedule.

Some conditions are ongoing.

Some fluctuate.

Some require regular treatment over months or even years.

Intermittent FMLA is designed to provide job protection while someone manages those realities.

Like continuous FMLA, intermittent leave is generally unpaid unless another source of income replacement is available.

The difference isn't whether you're protected—it's how the leave is used.

It's also important to know that intermittent leave generally counts against your total FMLA entitlement, even when it's used a few hours or one day at a time.

Understanding intermittent FMLA helps explain why someone may be absent from work periodically without taking a traditional leave of absence.

The law recognizes that treatment, recovery, and caregiving don't always happen in one uninterrupted block of time.

I walk through this framework in more detail on my site.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/25/2026

If you've ever tried to figure out whether you qualify for FMLA, paid family leave, short-term disability, PTO, workers' compensation, or an ADA accommodation, you've probably had the same thought:

Why is this so complicated?

The answer isn't that someone sat down and designed an incredibly complex system.

The answer is that our leave system wasn't built all at once.

It was built piece by piece over decades, with each new law or benefit attempting to solve a different problem.

One of the biggest reasons the United States has an employer-based benefits system can be traced back to World War II.

During the war, employers faced wage controls that limited their ability to compete for workers through higher pay. Instead, many began offering benefits like health insurance. Federal tax policy later reinforced that approach, and over time many employers expanded those benefit packages to include paid sick leave, disability insurance, vacation time, and eventually paid parental leave.

Instead of creating one national system, the United States gradually developed thousands of employer-specific benefit programs.

By the 1970s and 1980s, the workforce had changed dramatically. More women were participating in the workforce, dual-income households became increasingly common, and more employees found themselves balancing work with caregiving responsibilities.

Many workers faced an impossible choice:

Take the time they needed.

Or keep their job.

As pressure grew for a national leave policy, the debate wasn't whether employees ever needed time away from work.

Most people agreed they did.

The real question was what responsibility employers should have while an employee was on leave.

In 1993, Congress passed the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).

The law created a federal right to unpaid, job-protected leave for many eligible employees.

That wasn't because lawmakers had forgotten about income.

Paid leave was part of the broader debate.

But after years of legislative negotiations, political disagreement, and two presidential vetoes, Congress ultimately reached consensus around protecting employment—not requiring employers to provide wages during leave.

The result was a law that answered one important question:

"Can I take leave without losing my job?"

It deliberately left another largely unanswered:

"How will I pay my bills while I'm gone?"

For many employees, that answer still depended on employer benefits, accrued PTO, disability insurance, or, years later, state paid family and medical leave programs.

Since then, additional pieces have continued to be added.

Some employers expanded paid leave benefits.

Some states created paid family and medical leave programs.

Workers' compensation remained its own system.

Reasonable accommodations under the ADA addressed a different workplace need.

Each serves an important purpose.

But each was created at a different time, for a different reason, to solve a different problem.

That's why workplace leave can feel so overwhelming today.

It isn't one program.

It's a collection of programs that developed over generations.

Understanding that history doesn't make the system simpler.

But it does help explain why navigating workplace leave often means navigating several different systems at once.

The complexity isn't an accident.

It's the result of decades of building new layers onto an existing foundation.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/24/2026

Most workplaces are built around a simple assumption:

People are generally predictable.

They will arrive when expected.
Work when expected.
Be available when expected.
Perform at relatively consistent levels over time.

In many ways, that assumption makes sense. Teams need coordination. Work needs structure. Schedules exist for a reason.

The challenge is that people are not always predictable.

Health changes.
Children get sick.
Caregiving responsibilities emerge.
Transportation breaks down.
Life happens.

And some people experience unpredictability far more often than others.

Many workplace systems function best when employees can anticipate their own needs in advance. Need time off? Request it ahead of time. Need flexibility? Explain exactly what you'll need and when.

The underlying assumption is that unpredictability is the exception.

For many people, it isn't.

When work is built around predictability, people experiencing instability can appear less reliable — even when they are working incredibly hard to keep up.

Not because they care less.

Not because they're less committed.

But because the structure itself rewards consistency.

This week's Mid-Week Reflection looks at what happens when workplace systems are built around predictable lives — and what that means for people navigating less predictable realities.

Read the full reflection here:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/23/2026

Over the past several months, I've spent time discussing the history of disability and healthcare policy in the United States.

We've talked about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SSI, the Rehabilitation Act, Section 504, the Independent Living Movement, the ADA, Olmstead, the Affordable Care Act, and many of the policies that shaped the systems we navigate today.

What strikes me most is that the history is not really about programs.

It's about patterns.

And many of those patterns are still shaping people's experiences today.

One of the most consistent themes throughout disability and healthcare policy is that creating a program is not the same thing as making it accessible.

Again and again, policymakers created benefits, protections, services, and rights intended to help people.

But access often depended on much more than whether a program existed.

It depended on implementation.

Administration.

Funding.

Provider availability.

Geography.

Eligibility matters.

But access matters too.

And the two are not always the same thing.

History also reminds us that passing a law is rarely the end of the story.

The Rehabilitation Act was signed before Section 504 was fully implemented.

The ADA created broad protections, but questions about interpretation and enforcement continued for years.

Olmstead established important principles about community integration, but communities still needed services and supports to make those principles meaningful.

Rights on paper and rights in practice are not always identical.

Implementation matters.

Another lesson that appears throughout this history is that support and independence are not opposites.

Healthcare.

Community-based services.

Personal care assistance.

Transportation.

Workplace accommodations.

These supports often increase participation rather than reduce it.

People are not less independent because they use support.

In many cases, support is what makes independence possible.

Perhaps the most striking lesson is how often the same questions emerge across decades of policy discussions.

How should support be provided?

What barriers should be removed?

How do we improve access?

How do we create fairness while accommodating different needs?

The details change.

The programs change.

The language changes.

The questions often remain remarkably similar.

For me, that's one of the most valuable reasons to study history.

It reminds us that the systems we navigate today did not appear overnight.

They were shaped by decades of policy decisions, advocacy efforts, legal challenges, and lived experiences.

The policies have changed.

The programs have evolved.

But the central goal has remained remarkably consistent:

To create systems that allow more people to access healthcare, receive support, and participate fully in their communities.

History suggests that goal is rarely achieved all at once.

Instead, it is pursued one policy, one movement, one court case, and one generation at a time.

www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

06/22/2026

Myth:
Burnout is a personal resilience problem.

This is one of the most common ways burnout is discussed in workplace culture.

When someone is struggling, the conversation often focuses on what they should do differently. They should set better boundaries, improve their time management, practice more self-care, learn stress management techniques, or become more resilient.

And while those things can absolutely be helpful, they do not explain why entire teams, professions, and industries can experience burnout at the same time.

Burnout is often treated as evidence that an individual needs to change.

But many burnout conversations ignore the conditions that created the burnout in the first place.

Workplace burnout is frequently influenced by factors that are outside any one employee's control. Chronic understaffing, unrealistic workloads, conflicting priorities, lack of control over work, insufficient resources, constant interruptions, emotional labor, and unclear expectations can all contribute to burnout.

When those conditions persist over time, even highly capable and deeply committed employees can struggle.

Many people assume burnout happens because someone is not coping well enough.

In reality, burnout often affects people who care deeply about their work.

Healthcare workers, teachers, caregivers, social service professionals, leaders, and high-performing employees are often praised for their dedication and resilience. Yet those same qualities can make it easier to continue pushing through unhealthy conditions long after support is needed.

Resilience matters.

But resilience is not an unlimited resource.

A resilient employee may be able to tolerate difficult conditions for a period of time. They may continue producing good work. They may continue showing up for their team.

That does not mean the conditions are sustainable.

And it does not mean the responsibility for solving the problem belongs solely to the individual experiencing it.

Because when burnout is framed only as a personal resilience problem, we stop asking important questions about the systems, structures, and workplace conditions contributing to it.

Burnout is not always a sign that someone needs to work harder on themselves.

Sometimes it is a sign that something around them needs to change.

Resilience can help people survive unhealthy systems. It cannot make unhealthy systems healthy.

I’m collecting these myths — and why they persist — on the Lantern & Rune site:
www.lanternandruneconsulting.com

Lantern & Rune Consulting

08/09/2026

07/22/2026

06/30/2026

06/29/2026

06/28/2026

06/26/2026

06/25/2026

06/24/2026

06/23/2026

06/22/2026

Address

Website

Alerts

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Listing takedown request