There is no difference. They are the same.
The terms “person with changed work capacity” and “person with a disability” are not synonyms, but concepts used in different contexts. The difference is not in the individuals themselves, but in the legal, social, or labormarket framework in which we talk about them.
Let’s look at what the two terms mean:
Person with a disability: a person who has a long-term physical, sensory, intellectual, or psychosocial condition that hinders participation in everyday life. This concept comes from a social and human rights perspective.
Person with changed work capacity: a legal and employment category that refers to individuals whose ability to work is permanently limited due to health impairment or disability. In other words, this concept is fundamentally tied to labormarket frameworks.
It is worth taking a little detour into how these rather twisted Hungarian expressions came into being. This brief historical overview clearly shows how language has also changed under the influence of societal attitudes.
Regarding the concept of disability, even in the 19th–20th centuries, common language and even medical terminology included the words crippled, stupid, lame, idiot, and invalid as fully accepted terms. These words originate from medieval Hungarian (except for “idiot,” which came to us from Greek and Latin) and were not considered offensive, they were simply descriptive labels. Today, “thanks” to societal attitudes, they have become strongly stigmatizing, as people started using them as insults.
What did language do in response? It moved forward. It invented the terms disabled, then person living with a disability, which we can now barely pronounce. The word “disabled,” for example, was accompanied by linguistic debates because it was originally a military term and was therefore considered unfortunate. “Person living with a disability” spread in Hungary under the influence of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. By 2025, even the Fundamental Law recognizes this as the correct usage (it is unknown whether the affected people were consulted).
Its advantage is that the language signals a societal shift: the emphasis is no longer on the “barrier,” but on human rights and social participation.
The term “changed work capacity” is the result of the mass disability pensions following the regime change. At that time, many people received disability pensions not only because of disability but also due to long-term illnesses. However, this category was too broad, which led to the 2011 reform and with it the term “person with changed work capacity.” Its goal is fundamentally commendable, as instead of disability pension and a kind of withdrawal, it promotes employment based on remaining, developable abilities. In practice however, it has been and still is heavily criticized, often justifiably. It is particularly confusing for HR professionals, as it is not straightforward, comes with administrative burdens, and many experience it as a stigma in the workplace. Another problematic regulation is that companies with more than 25 employees must employ at least 5% of their staff as people with changed work capacity. If they don’t, they must pay a rehabilitation contribution. The idea is good, as it creates opportunities. However, simply “filling the quota” does not fulfill its role, there is no real inclusion. It stigmatizes, creates administrative burden, and only fulfills a legal obligation. Companies often focus not on the abilities, but only on the existence of the category. Not to mention that the effect does not apply equally in all employment sectors.
Many HR professionals think that the two terms refer to two separate groups, whereas in reality, they describe the same people, just framed differently. This can also cause confusion in benefits, support programs, and legal documents.
Is there a solution to this conceptual confusion?
The solution is by no means introducing a third, fourth, or tenth complicated new term, but using the existing ones correctly and in the proper context.
“Person living with a disability” should be the basic, human-centered term. Meanwhile, “person with changed work capacity” should remain the legal-administrative category. This avoids confusion and strengthens societal awareness.
Better solutions exist for the mandatory quota for people with changed work capacity than the Hungarian one. Flexible support, barrier-free workplaces, HR training on the topic, and complex incentive systems are possible. In Italy for example, if companies cannot meet the mandatory quota, they receive state support for accessibility and workplace adaptation.
Written by Veronika Pataki