Posts Tagged ‘comorbidities’

Workers’ Compensation Psychosocial Issues: A Big, Fat, Costly Problem

Tuesday, January 31st, 2017

Workers’ compensation claims adjusters are busier than the Ed Sullivan Plate Spinner. Running around with one or two hundred lost time claims would make anyone dizzy, but at the recent National Workers’ Compensation & Disability Conference (NWCDC) in New Orleans, presenters tossed the frazzled spinners a few more plates to shoot up on the sticks.

The issue? Psychosocial factors delaying claim resolution.

At one well-attended session, Marco Iglesias, Medical Director for The Hartford, and Robert Hall, Corporate Medical Director for Optum, went into great detail about how psychosocial factors rear their heads in the claim process and how they impede recovery.

For example, consider these research statistics based on a study of 75,000 claims:

Time out of work increases 30% for a musculoskeletal claim with one co-morbid complication;

Duration increases 57% if the claim co-morbidity is depression;

According to The Hartford’s Dr. Iglesias, 10% of claims, the ones with all those psychosocial issues, cause 60% of claim costs;

At another presentation, attendees learned that Mental Health, Addiction and Obesity are the three comorbidities causing the greatest cost and time away from work.

Also, according to an AETNA presentation, 97% of depressed patients have a second co-morbid condition.

Research aplenty. Solutions, not so many.

So, perhaps it’s time for a more comprehensive discussion.

To begin that, let me propose a thesis:

Our nation’s current system for treating injured workers with mental health issues is uncoordinated, overly fragmented, highly wasteful and does not focus enough on speedy return to work. There is a critical need for a more systemic approach as well as an integrated coterie of clinicians and practitioners, trained in workers’ compensation, whose goals are to provide compassionate treatment with a steady return to work trajectory. 

The issue is compounded by the way claim adjusters, supervisors, nurses and defense attorneys view psychological issues. No one wants to ”buy a psych claim,” and many  believe that referring a claimant for behavioral health treatment does nothing more than create a lifetime annuity for a psychologist. Time and again this view has been proven correct.

What to do about that? Ay, there’s the rub. For in that question lies a host of difficulties. These, for instance:

  1. Most mental health professionals do not understand workers’ compensation. They do not realize either its statutory requirements or the concept of maximum medical improvement. They have spent many years being trained to treat the entire person. The players are the patient and the therapist, and it is like sitting on a two-legged stool. They do not fathom that, in workers’ compensation, the stool has five legs, with the other three occupied by the employer, the treating physician and the claim adjuster.
  2. Too often, by the time an adjuster or nurse recognizes that psychosocial issues may be impeding recovery and return to work the claim may have gotten a little long in the tooth; it could be months old, or more.
  3. It can take a claim adjuster weeks, in rare cases, months, to find a psychologist and schedule an appointment. It can also take weeks or months for a report to make it back to the file. Moreover, finding a clinician with even a smattering of workers’ compensation knowledge or experience is often problematic (See 1, above).
  4. Because there is no mental health electronic health record system for workers’ compensation, every report is its own island, sometimes good, sometimes bad.
  5. Everything is paper-based, which wastes claim adjuster time and increases expense.¹
  6. Although psychologists understand the value of work as therapy, many see no reason to help coordinate early return to work with employers, claim adjusters or medical providers

These are deep and difficult considerations. Tomorrow, we’ll describe one possible solution offered by a company in New Jersey, which, in the interests of full disclosure, is a Lynch Ryan clent.

 

¹ Claim adjusters also report that a not insignificant number of these reports are essentially unreadable, because they are handwritten.

 

Tags:
Posted in Medical Issues, Psychosocial Issues, Research | Comments Off on Workers’ Compensation Psychosocial Issues: A Big, Fat, Costly Problem

Update on Obesity in America

Wednesday, September 10th, 2014

Trust for America’s Health and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation recently released The State of Obesity: Better Policies for a Healthier America, a 136 page report that can be downloaded in PDF.
obesity
This is the most recent in a series of updates on the topic of obesity, and while the report is guardedly more optimistic about the nation’s obesity rate — “there is increasing evidence that obesity rates are stabilizing for adults and children” — the overall situation is still plenty bleak. Here are some highlights:

  • Adult obesity rates rose in Alaska, Delaware, Idaho, New Jersey, Tennessee and Wyoming
  • More than a third of adults (34.9 percent) were obese as of 2011 to 2012.
  • More than two-thirds of adults were overweight or obese (68.5 percent).
  • Over the past 35 years, obesity rates have more than doubled. From 2009 to 2010 to 2011 to 2012, rates remained the same. The average American is more than 24 pounds heavier today than in 1960.
  • Two states have adult obesity rates above 35 percent (Mississippi and West Virginia), 20 states have rates at or above 30 percent, 42 states have rates above 25 percent and every state is above 20 percent. In 1980, no state was above 15 percent; in 1991, no state was above 20 percent; in 2000, no state was above 25 percent; and, in 2007, only Mississippi was above 30 percent.
  • The 10 states with the highest rates of type 2 diabetes are all in the South. Alabama had the highest rate at 13.8 percent.

highest
lowest
Related medical conditions
The report also discusses obesity’s link with other serious, life-limiting illnesses. Here’s a sampling:

  • Diabetes rates have nearly doubled in the past 20 years — from 5.5 percent in 1988 to 1994 to 9.3 percent in 2005 to 2010.
  • More than 25 million American adults have diabetes and another 79 million have prediabetes. The CDC projects that one-in-three adults could have diabetes by 2050.
  • One in four Americans has some form of cardiovascular disease.
  • One in three adults has high blood pressure, a leading cause of stroke.
  • Approximately 30 percent of cases of hypertension may be attributable to obesity, and the figure may be as high as 60 percent in men under age 45.
  • People who are overweight are more likely to have high blood pressure, high levels of blood fats and high LDL (bad cholesterol), which are all risk factors for heart disease and stroke.

The report contains significant detail about adult demographics and a special focus on childhood obesity rates, recommendations and policy initiatives.
Obesity and the Work Comp Nexus
How does obesity affect workers’ comp? Here are a variety of studies, reports and news related to workers compensation and obesity – from our own pages and from other sources. .
Weighing the Obesity Factor in Workers’ Compensation
The Influences of Obesity and Age on Functional Performance During Intermittent Upper Extremity Tasks
New Study Shows Significant Health Risks for Long-haul Drivers
AMA declares obesity a disease
Comorbidities in Workers Compensation, NCCI 2012
Indemnity Benefit Duration and Obesity, NCCI 2012
Safety 2012: Ergonomic Strategies for Managing Obesity in the Workplace
Plump my workforce: new studies document obesity-related work costs
The Not-So-Hidden Cost of Obesity
New York Weighs In on Obesity
Compensable weight loss surgery? A new wrinkle in obesity
The effect of obesity and other comorbidities on workers comp
Weighty matters: the high cost of obesity in the workplace
Obesity in Workers Comp: Duke Sounds the Alarm

Tags: , ,
Posted in Medical Issues | No Comments »

Too Much Sitting Plus Comorbidities = Big Trouble

Tuesday, May 15th, 2012

For those who seek risk conundrums, workers comp is fertile ground. From a micro perspective, the unfortunate Ronald Westerman, a paramedic for a California ambulance company, embodies many of the elements that result in sleepless nights for claims adjusters and actuaries: Westerman had an inordinately long commute (2.5 hours each way!), a sitting job with periodic lifting (inert patients and medical equipment), along with the comorbidities of hypertension, obesity and diabetes. In two years of ambulance work, Westerman gained 70 pounds, thereby compounding the co-morbidity issues.
In March 2009 Westerman returned home from a 36 hour shift and suffered a stroke. His doctor determined that the stroke was work related and that Westerman was permanently and totally disabled. He was 50 years old. While there was some dispute over the cause of the stroke, an independent medical evaluator surmised that it was caused by a blood clot moving through a hole in Westerman’s heart to his brain, otherwise known as in-situ thrombosis in his lower extremities – a direct result of too much sitting. (We blogged a compensable fatality from too much sitting here.)
At the appeals level, compensability centered on the performance of a shunt study – an invasive test – that would have determined whether the blood clot caused the stroke. Westerman was willing to undergo the test, but his wife refused to authorize it, due to his fragile health. If there was no hole near the heart, the entire theory of compensability would be disproven; the stroke would not have been work related.
Had the defense attempted to force the test issue, it would have given rise to yet another conundrum: was refusing an invasive test the equivalent of “unreasonable refusal to submit to medical treatment”? Indeed, does a diagnostic test, by itself, meet the definition of “treatment”? Fortunately for Westerman, the defense requested – but did not attempt to require – the shunt test.
Managing Comorbidities
Our esteemed colleague Joe Paduda, who blogs over at Managed Care Matters, provides the macro perspective, one which is unlikely to aid in the sleep patterns for actuaries. He reports on the impact of comorbidities on cost from the recent NCCI conference:

The work done by NCCI was enlightening. 4% of all claims (MO and LT) between 2000 – 09 had treatments, paid for by workers comp, for comorbidities, with hypertension the most common. These claims cost twice as much as those without comorbidities [emphasis added].

It is beyond doubt that comorbidities make work-related injuries more expensive. But what, if anything, can claims managers do about this? In the Westerman case, there is not much to be done, as the stroke resulted in a permanent total disability. But in other cases where there is a path to recovery and even return to work, adjusters should flag these claims for early, intensive intervention, including psychological counseling and support for weight loss and other life style adjustments. To be sure, this would increase the upfront costs, but these steps just might go a long way toward mitigating the ultimate cost of the claims.
As is so often the case in workers comp, it’s “pay me now” and “pay me later.” To which I can only say to my claims adjuster and actuary friends, “sweet dreams!”

Tags: , ,
Posted in Best Practices, Compensability, Disability, Insurance & Insurers, Medical Issues | No Comments »

The Not-So-Hidden Cost of Obesity

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

NCCI has published an interesting study on the relationship between obesity and the cost of workers compensation claims. To no one’s surprise, the study concludes that medical costs for the same injury are 3 times higher among obese claimants in the first year, rising to five times higher at 60 months. In addition, claims for the non-obese are much more likely to be medical only; obese workers, when injured, tend to lose time and collect indemnity. For the same injury and all else being equal, the range of medical treatment, the costs and the duration of the claim are consistently greater for obese employees.
The study cites CDC data on the incidence of obesity in the general population. In 1990 10 states had incidence rates of obesity under 10% and none were above 15%. By 2009, 33 states had incidence rates equal to or above 25% and nine (mostly deep south) states had rates at 30% or higher.
The study is based upon 27,000 claims, of which 7,000 carried a specific diagnosis for obesity as a co-morbidity. Data wonks will duly note that there must have been a significant number of obese claimants outside the “obese” group, due to the fact that treating doctors would not consistently list obesity under the diagnosis.
Underwriting the Overweight
I feel a great deal of sympathy these days for the challenges facing comp underwriters and actuaries. Their customary approach of using the rear view mirror as the major indicator of future risk is increasingly ineffective. Now you can add the issue of obesity to mostly hidden factors that can seriously skew loss ratios.
The CDC data clearly indicates an alarming upward trend in obesity. Many of the obese are in the workforce. Indeed, companies might hire a person within the normal weight range and then see this individual gain substantial weight during the course of employment. Many of these burgeoning employees are performing physically demanding tasks. When they suffer from back strains, for example, the medical costs associated with treatment are more than double those of the non-obese. (On the other hand, the cost for the medical treatment of carpal tunnel injuries is virtually the same for the obese and non-obese.)
Fire the Big People?
With this data in hand, it may be tempting for employers to avoid hiring the obese and find ways of terminating current employees who tip the scale in the wrong direction. This would eliminate some very productive people. In addition, it raises the specter of discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act protects those with disabilities that impact “one or more major life activities.” That might – but does necessarily – include the morbidly obese.
The NCCI study raises the issue of higher costs for injuries involving the obese. There is a more proactive way to look at the issue. Employers could focus on incentives to promote wellness. Employees who stay fit could receive enhanced benefits. We have drug-free and smoke-free workplaces. Perhaps it’s time for snack-free workplaces – or healthy snacks. Out with soda machines and in with the vitamin water.
It’s interesting to note that when opening comp claims, insurers generally do not collect data on height and weight . They really should. Where the data indicates that weight will be a significant factor in recovery, steps could be taken to encourage weight loss as part of the treatment plan. (For an example of court-ordered weight reduction, see our blog on the obese pizza maker here.)
Ultimately, the effort of employers to control losses will come up against the freedom of people to act as they choose. It’s one thing to provide incentives for losing weight, it’s quite another – especially in the deep south – to take away the Coca Colas. For many strong advocates of the American way, them’s fighting words, indeed.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Business, Disability, Medical Issues | 1 Comment »

Cavalcade of Risk & other workers’ comp news briefs

Thursday, November 5th, 2009

Debbie Dragon or Wise Bread hosts this week’s Cavalcade of Risk, which she dubs the “the How Much Assurance Does Your Insurance Offer edition.” As usual, a good source of some of the best biweekly risk-related posts in the blogosphere!
OSHA – frequent citations – OSHA recently announced its Top 10 Enforcement Citations. For a more generic, non-company specific view, see the top 10 lists for the most frequently cited standards and the standards with the highest penalties. To narrow down to information to an industry SIC code, a state, or a size of employer, see the interactive frequently cited OSHA standards page.
Montana Supreme Court – Montana’s Supreme Court ruled that workers’ compensation benefits for permanently and totally disabled workers are meant to assist them for their “work life,” and not into retirement. Writing for the 5-2 majority, Justice William Leaphart stated that, “By acting to terminate benefits as it does, (the law) rationally advances the governmental purpose of providing wage-loss benefits that bear a reasonable relationship to actual wages lost.”
Chronic illness – This week, Roberto Ceniceros has featured a pair of posts related to chronic illness on his Comp Time blog. The first highlights a research report from the Integrated Benefits Institute in which nine in ten workers reported one or more chronic health problems. The report is based on 27,000 employee surveys. In his second post, Ceniceros explores the issue of wellness programs as they relate to chronic illness and workers comp. He makes the point that an increasing number of employees may be getting better health care attention after reporting a comp injury, but that is likely true mostly for employees of large, sophisticated employers.
Related to this issue, Peter Rousmaniere writes about “the elephant in the room” in his column in Risk and Insurance, noting that co-morbidities — such as obesity, depression, diabetes, sexual trauma, smoking, and drug addiction — derail the recovery of injured workers and pose challenges for claims adjusters and case managers. He makes the point that the the workers’ compensation courts are more inclined today to rule that insurers “own” the comorbidity that impedes recovery, as evidenced by the recent weight-loss surgery rulings.
Long road to recovery – the Pocono Record features the story of John Capanna’s long, slow recovery from a severe industrial injury. John was severely burned and disfigured in a flash explosion at an oil refinery some 30 years ago. It’s a story of courage and strength. Thanks to SafetynewsAlert for pointing us to this story.
Saving lives through safety – Robert Hartwig, president of the Insurance Information Institute, makes the case that insurers don’t get enough credit for saving lives with safety research in this month’s National Underwriter. Among the points that he makes: “Today, workers’ comp insurers are a primary source of loss control expertise for millions of American businesses – with tangible results. Consider that in 1926, an employee working in a manufacturing setting had a 25 percent chance of being injured on the job. In other words, one-in-four workers suffered injuries each year. In 2008, the odds were only about 5 percent, or just one-in-20.”
Ferreting out fraud through social networking – Attorney Molly DiBianca discusses risks entailed in using Facebook to investigate employee fraud, suggesting guidelines to ensure employer protection.
Quickies
Surgical Fire Prevention
Who is the authorized employee for Lockout/Tagout?
Lack of paid sick days may worsen flu pandemic
Your forklift questions answered
More forklift questions, more answers

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in News roundups | Comments Off on Cavalcade of Risk & other workers’ comp news briefs

The Cost of Getting Better

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Earlier this week, my colleague Julie Ferguson blogged an intriguing case in Indiana, where Adam Childers, an obese pizza baker, suffered a back injury when he was hit by a swinging freezer door. He was unable to get better due to his obesity. As a result, the Indiana court ordered the employer to pay for weight reduction surgery, to be followed by back surgery, all the while providing temporary total disability benefits to Childers. A relatively large claim becomes a very large claim due to the prospect of sequential surgeries. This case raises some fascinating issues concerning the cost of getting better. Boy, does it ever!
There is no need to repeat the succinct summary of the case provided in Julie’s blog. For those interested in the details, here is the actual opinion of the court.
This case raises two compelling issues: First, the degree to which employers become responsible for non-work related factors in recovery; and second, the looming specter of widespread discrimination against people whose pre-existing conditions make virtually any injury substantially more difficult to manage.
Taking People as They Are
Employers cannot set a high bar for “health and wellness” and then exclude everyone who falls below it. Any health standards must be grounded in business necessity. As we have seen in recent blogs, employers might be in a position to reject applicants who smoke (depending upon the state), but they generally cannot arbitrarily turn away people with co-morbidities that may impact recovery times: diabetes, heart conditions, asthma, etc.
In the Indiana case, at the time of the injury Childers weighed 340 pounds and smoked 30 cigarettes a day. In its opinion, the court did not consider him “disabled” as defined in the ADA: his weight did not “substantially impact” one or more major life activities. Thus, despite his weight, he did not fall into a protected class.
Once injured, however, Childers’s weight became a major obstacle to his recovery. Indeed, any obese person suffering from back, hip, knee, leg or ankle injuries would find recovery extremely difficult, as their spine and limbs are routinely stressed by the sheer weight of the body. Under Indiana law, the pre-existing condition of obesity combines with the work-related injury to produce a single injury. With the pre-existing condition absorbed into the workers comp claim, the employer is responsible for any and all treatments required to bring the worker to maximum medical improvement.
There is a definite logic to the Indiana court’s position. The problem is not in its protection of Childers, but in the implications for all Indiana employers as they are confronted with hiring decisions.
When in Doubt, Leave Them Out?
With the Childers’s decision, employers in Indiana have been put on notice that at least one conspicuous part of the labor pool – obese people – bring the risk of substantially higher costs following injuries in the workplace. As employers make day to day hiring decisions, they may well have the image of higher costs of injuries associated with obesity in the back of their minds. Given two applicants, one obese, one within normal weight ranges, employers may be tempted to ignore other important hiring factors such as motivation and experience and reject the obese applicant.
Thus the unfortunate consequence of providing extensive benefits to Childers is that it may have the proverbial “chilling effect” on the job prospects for others with similar weight problems. The obese already suffer from the daily judgment of a thousand eyes: their weight problems are impossible to hide. Now they may have to overcome the additional burden of fearful Indiana employers, who exclude them from employment in the vague hope of keeping the costs of comp under control.

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Best Practices, Compensability, Medical Issues, Safety & Health | Comments Off on The Cost of Getting Better