Posts Tagged ‘healthcare reform’

The Sickest Of The Sick, The Poorest Of The Poor

Tuesday, April 5th, 2016

They comprise less than 4% of the nation’s population, yet consume nearly 34% of health care dollars. Sixty percent are age 65 or older. About 40% are younger people with ADL-qualifying disabilities. More than half fall below the federal poverty level. Almost half never graduated high school. Nearly two-thirds are female. Fifty-eight percent are white/non-hispanics.

They are America’s “Dual Eligibles,” our fellow citizens who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid benefits. Technically, because they’re Duals, they are not the “uninsured.” Still, they sit smack dab in Obamacare’s bulls eye.

In 2003, here in Massachusetts, a pioneering visionary decided to create a non-profit HMO that would offer as its sole product a Senior Care Option plan aimed at the over-65 Dual population. As a former head of the Long-Term Care Division within the Commonwealth’s Medicaid Program, Mass Health, Dr. Bob Master knew a lot about the Duals and the many challenges they presented. Somehow, he convinced a few academics and business people to join his brand new Board of Directors for his Quixotic quest. I was one of them.

In the early days, the hunt for funding was all-consuming, but against considerable odds, funding was found, and, with the support of CMS and Mass Health, an incubator for the nation was born – Commonwealth Care Alliance.

Bob immediately set out to prove that Duals could achieve significantly better health and well-being at lower cost if they were cared for in a home-based regimen by highly trained teams of providers. And between 2003 and 2014, CCA produced eye-popping proof of concept results. For example, thirty-day hospital readmission rates for these sickest of the sick and poorest of the poor consistently beat Medicare’s overall rate. CCA achieved annual Medicare star ratings of 4.5 or better (Because of Senior Care Option demographics, it is statistically impossible for the company to achieve a higher rating).

CMS took note. And when medical, academic and political luminaries were crafting the Affordable Care Act, Bob was instrumental in convincing them Duals were a target not to be missed.

Consequently, the Affordable Care Act created demonstration projects in nine states from California to Massachusetts to see whether it’s possible to improve the health of all Duals, those over the age of 65 as well as under it, while reducing their health care costs. A tall order, indeed, because it had never been done before.

CMS and Mass Medicaid issued a humongously big RFP. Commonwealth Care Alliance answered it and won the right to play in the new sandbox, called One Care. The year 2014 was spent in preparing. For example, in order to be ready, the company had to double the size of staff (there are now more than 800) and train the newbies to successfully manage CCA’s unique model of care. That was not easy.

In early 2015, we opened the floodgates to the state’s thousands of Duals under the age of 65. Since then, it’s been a thrilling ride, because throughout 2015 CCA had a few near-death-experiences. But with the help of both CMS and Medicaid we were able to negotiate the potholes and speed-bumps, and now, after more than a few sleepless nights, the company cares for more than 17,000 Duals with Medicare and Medicaid premium of more than $850 million. In essence, CCA is beginning (barely) to do well by doing good. To my mind, if the Affordable Care Act, Obamacare, does nothing more than significantly improve the lot in life of the nation’s Duals while lowering their cost of care, it will be a success of the first order.

Now, it’s time to turn the reins over to a new era of leadership. Last Friday, we had a retirement party for Bob Master where CCA employees who could free themselves from work for a couple of hours came to Boston to say hail and farewell. Many came on their own time. There was a great big cake and a lake-full of diet soda and coffee, but no dignitaries, just current staff and a number of Directors. The Chair of the Board said nice things about Bob and the ride we’d all been on. I described how, after all this time, Bob and I had discovered less than a year ago over lunch that, in addition to growing up in the next town to each other, we had been comrades in arms back in the late-60s in Vietnam; in the same Division, even, at the same time. Funny, that.

Many employees read stories they’d prepared for the occasion. Honest tears were shed. Bob gave an extemporaneous speech that was heartfelt and touching. He thanked all who had joined in the noble quest, many by name. Then he rode off into the sunset.

But the work goes on.

 

 

 

 

Fifty States, Fifty Different Laws: A Peter Rousmaniere Analysis

Monday, February 1st, 2016

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) Consumer Price Index calculator, what you bought for $100 in 1973 would today cost $533.82. Despite this, during that same period wage growth for the median hourly worker grew by less that 4%. 

Moreover, as the following chart from the Economic Policy Institute (EPI) shows, while wages flattened out after 1973, productivity continued to increase at a steady pace through 2010.

Everything seems to be going up across America except hourly compensation. That helps explain why our recent economic high hard one to the head, known as The Great Recession, has left so many families living paycheck to paycheck, one crisis away from living under a bridge. It also illuminates why the indemnity and medical benefits of workers’ compensation are critical to economic survival following a work injury.

In 2015, ProPublica and NPR published a series of exposès that showed widespread disparity in the way the various states deal with work injuries. Workers’ comp professionals didn’t like the series much, complaining en masse that it was biased, agenda-driven and just plain wrong. Silly me, I thought the series actually made some important points, especially around the level of compensation for loss of function.

Into this battle now rides Peter Rousmaniere, friend, colleague, Harvard MBA, WorkCompCentral columnist and all-around deep thinker.

Mr. Rousmaniere spent a good portion of 2015 researching the economic consequences to injured workers with respect to how the different state workers’ compensation laws deal with the early days of a work injury. He illustrates his findings in The Uncompensated Worker: The Financial Impact of Workers’ Comp on Injured Workers & Their Families, published as a workcompcentral special report.

In the Uncompensated Worker, Peter Rousmaniere creates the metaphorical Tim, a New York electrician earning the median wage for New York electricians. He then goes really deep into the take home pay hit Tim experiences following a work injury. He shows how Tim will always suffer earnings losses while injured regardless of how long he’s out of work, and he does it by considering the waiting period (the number of calendar days between the injury and when indemnity payments will begin), the “shortfall” (“The difference between a workers’ after-tax take-home pay and the amount of the replacement wages”), the “retroactive” calculation (the number of days an injured worker has to lose from work before being paid indemnity for the waiting period) and the maximum weekly benefit cap.

Here’s how Rousmaniere describes what happens to Tim if he misses three, six or ten days due to the injury:

While Tim’s 6% shortfall may not seem unreasonable, additional deductions further reduce his replacement wages. First, there’s a waiting period during which a worker receives nothing, a retroactive period (in most states) and a maximum weekly benefit cap. The amount Tim actually receives depends on the number of days he missed work. We can correlate work and calendar days for Tim by looking at a calendar and figuring his first lost work day on a Monday. If Tim misses three days of work, he receives nothing; losing six days of work yields close to one work day of replacement wages, and losing 10 work days yields five work days (seven calendar days) of replacement wages.

With that New York backdrop, Rousmaniere then shows how Tim would fare in each of the other states. But he goes even farther. Drawing from Economic Policy Institute estimates, which create basic monthly household budgets based on household size and location “to attain a modest yet adequate standard of living,” he builds an EPI-estimated monthly basic budget for Tim and his family of four. He then lays out what happens to the family economy when Tim is out of work due to injury for an extended time, say more than a month. If Tim’s spouse works part-time, the family can’t afford the basic budget in 29 states; if the spouse doesn’t work, they’re under water to the tune of $2,200 a month in every state.

This is sobering stuff. The 50-state and District of Columbia chart at the end of the report is nearly totally comprised of negative numbers.

Reading the report, I’m left with this: Assume (as most claim adjusters tell me) that well over 90% of injured workers really are injured and want to get back to work as expeditiously as possible. Should those workers suffer economic deprivation simply because they had the misfortune to be injured at work? Does society have an obligation to ensure that families, already perilously close to the edge of the financial cliff, are not booted into the abyss because of that work injury? And, finally, is it time for indemnity and medical benefit parity among the states (for example, if Tim were injured in New Jersey he’d fare considerably better than in New York)?

Peter Rousmaniere has performed a valuable service with The Uncompensated Worker. When (it should not be “if”) you read it, you’ll come away admiring the level of research and detail that went into producing it. I also hope you come away thinking their just might be a better way.

 

Hospital Medicare Charges: You Don’t Always Get What You Want

Monday, June 8th, 2015

In early June of this year, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) let loose a treasure trove of data. One data set lists inpatient charges of 3,000 hospitals for the 100 most frequently billed diagnoses of 2013. The differences between what the hospitals billed and what Medicare paid are eye-popping, as are the differences between what hospitals within just a few miles of each other charged.

The inpatient data shows Medicare paid about $62 billion to cover more than 7 million discharges. Our good friends at Modern Healthcare have analyzed the data. This, from Modern Healthcare’s Bob Herman:

Hospitals have been under intense scrutiny for their billing practices, often triggered by extremely high charges—or sticker prices—for common procedures. Consumer groups and patient advocates argue hospital pricing is shrouded in secrecy, which has put patients on the hook for costly bills. But hospitals have said the listed charges are irrelevant because they only serve as a starting point for negotiations with insurers and that patients rarely, if ever, pay those prices.

The CMS data is shining a light on the process. The agency has now released data from 2011, 2012 and 2013. Charges for various inpatient and outpatient procedures differed significantly again in 2013 as they did in prior years. In many instances, charges fluctuated greatly among hospitals in the same region.

A Modern Healthcare analysis of the inpatient payment data shows Philadelphia, Los Angeles and Newark, N.J., had the largest gulfs in charges between the top and bottom hospitals. For example, in Philadelphia, the average difference in average hospital charges across all procedures was $123,847. In Los Angeles—an area rife with academic medical centers such as Cedars-Sinai Medical Center—the average difference between the highest-charging hospital and the lowest-charging hospital was about $112,000.

Did you catch the part about the listed charges being irrelevant, because they’re only starting points for negotiations? Reminds me of the last time I bought a car.

You might be tempted to say, “That’s crazy! Why do hospitals do that?” Let me answer with a little story.

A few years ago, I was a Trustee at a major teaching hospital in Massachusetts, a tertiary care facility, one of the biggies. At one Board meeting early on in my trusteeship I asked the CEO how the hospital was compensated for uninsured people who were indigent. His answer? “We charge them the moon.” Note to reader: he’s talking about the indigent patient, here. “Then, when the state’s uncompensated care pool gets around to paying us, we’ll get a lot more than if we just charged them what the procedure cost, in which case we’d get a lot less than what the procedure cost.” I never forgot that lesson in hospital economics.

So, you see, when hospitals say their charges are “starting points,” they’re telling the truth. And that is one spooky scary example of what a first-class horrendoma the American healthcare system (if you can call it that) has become.

Health Wonk Review, “Football Is Here” Edition at Colorado Health Insurance Insider

Thursday, September 13th, 2012

Check out a fun and smart Health Wonk Review – “Football Is Here” Edition posted by Louise Norris at Colorado Health Insurance Insider.
We don’t want to step on her toes here, just go read the whole edition, which is a pretty full one — Louise always does a very thoughtful job in framing each entry — but we would echo her recommendation to be sure to visit the post from Amy Berman – the first one in this edition. It’s so very worth reading and thinking about. Thank you Amy, and best to you!

Health Wonk Review’s Memorial Day Edition

Thursday, May 26th, 2011

Chris Fleming hosts a substantive Memorial Day issue of Health Wonk Review at Health Affairs Blog – there are a lot of good submissions on a variety of topics, from Medicare and the Affordable Care Act to quality and healthcare IT.
If you have an interest in health care – and with medical costs comprising a bigger and bigger portion of the claims dollar every year, you probably do – Health Affairs Blog is a good candidate for your regular reading list. The Blog is an offshoot of the publication of the same name, a peer-reviewed health policy journal that has held a premier place in the health policy arena for the last 30 years. The blog is a welcome adjunct to the journal. According to their “About” page: “The Blog features posts from noted health policy experts on both sides of the political aisle as well as regular Health Affairs contributors and staff. Recent bloggers have included Former Bush HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson, economists Uwe Reinhardt and Gail Wilensky, California HealthCare Foundation President and CEO Mark Smith, and Congressman James Cooper (D-TN).”

Health Wonk Review: the dog days of summer edition

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

dog-days
Like much of the country, we’ve had a sizzling summer here in the northeast, and we are just entering the dog days of summer. In Ancient Rome, the Dog Days extended from July 24 through August 24 and were popularly believed to be an evil time “when the seas boiled, wine turned sour, dogs grew mad, and all creatures became languid, causing to man burning fevers, hysterics, and phrensies.”
That sounds like a pretty accurate description of the climate as we head on into election season. If you thought all the excitement over health care reform had died down and you could slack off for your summer reading, think again. Things are still pretty heated and we expect much in the way of sea boiling, wine souring, madness, phrensies and hysteria right through the November election. To help you make sense of things, our esteemed contributors offer up an assortment of hot issues related to healthcare – from costs and reform to technology and ethics.
In A Reply to the Cato Insitute Report, Part 1 Maggie Mahar of Health Beat takes on Michael Tannner’s 52-page thesis Bad Medicine, which asserts that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is both unaffordable and unfair. Bad Medicine is meant to serve as a playbook for those who hope to kill reform, a theme that Tanner says will serve as the “centerpiece of Republican campaigns this fall.”
In his post Controlling health care costs: Who’s responsible?, Joe Paduda of Managed Care Matters wonders why those who believe health reform is socialism don’t have faith in the free market’s ability to control costs and deliver quality.
Uwe Reinhardt of Health Affairs Blog contemplates the difference between widgets and health care as he examines the issue of whether more insurers will better control health care costs.
In Standardizing Payments for Childbirth, Louise of Colorado Health Insurance Insider offers a quick and dirty summary of her idea to lower the c-section rate, which would be one piece of the ‘costs’ puzzle that is overwhelming our healthcare system.
David Williams of Health Business Blog expresses doubt about the sincerity of Republican objections to sending extra money to the states for Medicaid, but just in case, he offers a suggestion for how the deficit hawks can satisfy their concerns about Medicaid spending.
We have a pair of posts from the bloggers at Health Access WeBlog. First, Anthony Wright notes that the rate hikes by Anthem Blue Cross of California that helped jump-start health reform have had a second, third, and fourth act. He thinks that their recent rate filing demonstrates that public scrutiny matters. Next, Beth Capell reminds us that reform isn’t just about expanding coverage – it’s also about saying adios to the junkiest of junk health insurance.
A final rule for the “Meaningful Use” Regulation for Electronic Health Records has recently been issued, and two of our regular contributors shed light on the topic. Rich Elmore at Healthcare Technology News delivers a compendium of resources and analysis related to the final rules for Health Information Technology – Meaningful Use and Standards/Certification. David Harlow of HealthBlawg explains how this rule, along with the EHR certification rule and the HIPAA rule amendments (also recently released) will govern the future development of health IT in this country, and discusses details and implications of the meaningful use rule.
In his posting The Medicare ‘doc fix’: How to make political lemonade, Austin Frakt of The Incidental Economist, says that the Sustainable Growth Rate system was flawed from the start and should have been fixed years ago, but now we have an opportunity to make necessary systemic changes.
Jaan Sidorov of Disease Management Care Blog says that although the risk may appear to be low, Congress should consider the risk of a physician boycott of Medicare. He suggests that good business practice — Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) — requires it.
In Whose costs? Our costs, The Notwithstanding Blog suggests that patient convenience as a benefit of medical care delivery is largely ignored, and he makes the case for why it is a factor that should be weighed in any honest evaluation of competing reform proposals.
Peggy Salvatore of Healthcare Talent Transformation advocates for E-learning as the most cost effective and best way to educate healthcare workers on the use of IT in her post Technology for Healthcare Education: Build it and They Will Come, and Keep Coming!
Jared Rhoads of the The Lucidicus Project has been tweeting about the highlights and lowlights of the healthcare chapter of Mitt Romney’s book, “No Apology: The Case For American Greatness.” He’s compiled his tweets in his blog post: Twead #3: Mitt Romney. (Here’s a Twitterspeak Guide for all you non-tweeters)
Media Matters
In Everybody outta the pool!, Henry Stern of InsureBlog reports on a new high risk health pool and suggests that an agenda-driven press has mangled the message.
At Healthcare Economist, Jason Shafrin observes that when Congress enacted the Medicare and Social Security programs, the media coverage was intense. He notes, however, that Medicaid’s beginnings were more humble.
Ethics and marketing
Roy Poses of Health Care Renewal posts that the Avandia spin cycle continues even after the FDA safety hearings, noting that the case offers a good lesson in the need for skepticism about data and claims proffered to support commercial health care products. He finds it particularly disappointing that formerly prestigious medical societies and disease activity groups are increasingly funded by industry, and increasingly act like industry marketers.
Tinker Ready looks at the ethics of advertising, questioning whether hospitals should be promoting drugs used in clinical trials as “treatment” in her post MGH: Research as Marketing? at Nature Network Boston. We usually see Tinker at Boston Health News but this post appears the forum/blog/calendar/jobs site for local scientists.
Extended reading
In a series of posts (#1; #2; #3; #4; and #5), Brad Wright takes a closer look at health reform by elaborating on quotes drawn from Brown University political science professor Jim Morone’s Health Affairs article Presidents and Health Reform: From Franklin D. Roosevelt to Barack Obama.”
Over a series of posts at The Apothecary, Avik Roy discusses a Medicaid study from the University of Virginia which suggests that Medicaid patients fare worse than the uninsured (and far worse than those with private insurance) when undergoing a broad range of surgical procedures. Roy also points to posts by Incidental Economist Austin Frank, who has a different take on the studies.

Healthcare Reform and Workers Compensation

Monday, June 14th, 2010

In the the following guest post, Gary Anderberg, Phd, the Practice Leader For Outcomes and Analytics at Broadspire offers his thoughts on the potential impact of healthcare reform on workers comp in the coming years.
At the moment, health care reform appears to have a number of positive and negative potential impacts on workers compensation over the next few years. The net results cannot be estimated this early in the game. We can, however, identify a few elements and their possible consequences:

  • Insuring the now uninsured: Positive — employees who have health insurance tend to file fewer workers compensation claims. They have less incentive to cost shift. Another result will be that chronic medical conditions will be, over time, better controlled and less likely to increase the severity of work related claims.
  • Availability of care: Negative — with a large number of people having new health coverage, doctors and facilities may be swamped in some areas. The problem will lead to (a) delays in appointments for workers compensation-related medical treatments and (b) less willingness by providers to participate in occupational medical networks and offer discounts off fee schedules.
  • Removing the pre-existing exclusion: Unknown — in 2014 the pre-existing exclusion will disappear in group health. This cuts several ways at once. There will be less incentive for employees to claim long standing “wear and tear” conditions as work related – a positive change. There may also be much greater demand on employers for workplace and job accommodations leading to new exposures and safety issues.
  • Medicare reform: Negative — the passage of HR 3590 was predicated on massive adjustments in Medicare reimbursement levels, which are marginal for medical providers now. This will pressure providers, especially hospitals and some specialists, to cost shift where possible and workers compensation is a soft target in most states. We could see significant increases in medical costs per claim as the Medicare changes begin to bite in a couple of years. (The recession-driven cutbacks in state Medicaid reimbursements will only amplify this effect in the near term.)
  • Libby care: Unknown — the “Libby care” clause of HR 3590 (sec 1881A) is not intended to lead to the federalization of industrial diseases absent some very specific catastrophic circumstances comparable to those of the WR Grace disaster in Libby, MT. But we all know that ERISA was intended to address a very narrow set of union pension abuses when it was passed, but the Department of Labor, abetted by the Florida Administrators decision of the Supreme Court in 1977, expanded it greatly. The Libby care provision will bear watching.

Workers compensation was not at the table when Congress hammered out its health care reform solutions. Other than a few glancing mentions, such as the Libby care clause noted above, occupational medicine was overlooked and, by default, left to the states. This is probably a good thing, on balance. Yet, as health care reform changes begin to penetrate the enormous US health care enterprise, they will impact workers compensation in many overt and subtle ways over the next several years. Carriers, third party administrators, and managed care vendors will need to be alert to capture possible advantages and avoid potential nasty surprises.

Health Reform Roundup

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

We’ve compiled a variety of resources on the health care reform developments this week:
First stop, see Joe Paduda’s excellent analysis of Health Reform’s implications for workers’ comp, part 1, part 2 and part 3. Joe’s expertise in the inner workings of the medical side of workers comp make this a must-read.
In the National Underwriter, Arthur D. Postal gets insurer reactions to bill passage: Insurers Decry Health Bill for Lack of Cost Restrictions
Insurance Journal looks at the various suits filed by 12 state Attorneys General which challenge the constitutionality of reform: How States Are Responding to Healthcare Reform Law and Republican Attorneys General Pursue Sovereignty Claim Against Health Bill
Law Professor Mark D. Hall, J.D. offers his thoughts on the constitutionality of mandating health insurance at The Health Care Blog.
At the Washington Post, Ezra Klein explains how the exchanges work. Also see How big is the bill, really?
Jaan Sidorov at Disease Care Management Blog Has a multi-part post focusing on What the Health Reform Bill Says About Prevention, part 2
Tinker Ready does a local roundup over at Boston Health News: Health reform: How’s it playing in Mass?
At Healthcare Economist, Jason Shafrin samples the international reaction.
At Gooznews, Merrill Goozner talks about the the reinvention of social progress and notes the Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires more transparency about payments that drug and device companies make to doctors.
For employers, Anne Freedman of Human Resource Executive suggests that uncertainty reigns. While most changes for employers won’t be in effect until 2014 to 2018, she outlines some changes that go into effect this year.
Consumer Corner
The New York Times Prescription blog answers reader questions on the Health Care overhaul
At Kaiser Health News, Phil Galewitz offers a Consumers Guide to Health Reform. Kate Steadman and Julie Appleby talk about the immediate effects of the Health Reform Bill.
The Washington Post offers a cost calculator to help consumers learn the impact on their situation: What does the health care bill mean to me?
Specifics about the legislation – from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s page
U.S.A. Today looks at how health care overhaul affects taxpayers.

Fresh Health Wonk Review; also – the power of pink, the bunkhouse rule, and more

Thursday, February 18th, 2010

Clear the decks – it’s Health Wonk Review day and Brady Augustine has posted Health Wonk Review: “The Relationship Rescue” edition over at medicaidfirstaid. It’s a Dr. Phil-themed issue replete with art, videos, and commentary on some of the best of the health policy blogosphere. Check it out.
The Power of Pink – Sometimes those of us who work in workers comp are so focused on the process, the insurance issues, and following the dollars that we lose sight of the fact that we are actually in the people business. Our friends at the Work Comp Complex Care blog have a refreshing post that demonstrates the difference one person can make: A little pink goes a long way.
The Bunkhouse Rule – Can an injury that occurs at home be compensable? Yes, if your home is your employer’s property, according to the South Carolina Supreme Court. Read more details on the ruling in Roberto Ceniceros’ article in Business Insurance, Migrant worker’s injury in company housing ruled compensable.
Misclassification – The L.A. Times features an article by Dave Gram on a topic that is near and dear to our heart (search for “FedEx”): how companies are slashing payrolls by calling workers independent contractors. The Internal Revenue Service and 37 states are cracking down on this practice, which resulted in an estimated underpayment of $2.72 billion in lost Social Security taxes, unemployment insurance taxes, and income taxes just in the year 2006, according to the Government Accountability Office. Many experts think that the economic downturn has exacerbated the problem of employee misclassification.
Good PT and bad PT – At Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda asks How many dollars are wasted on physical therapy?. He suggests that while he’s a believer in the benefits of physical therapy, but advocates for clinical guidelines to separate the wheat from the chaff.
More on the Toyota mess – At Claims Magazine, Mary Anne Median writes that . Her article focuses on issues associated with claim-handling, subrogation, and litigation. It’s a fascinating read – here’s just a sampling:
“To break it down; damages, subrogation, and settlements will all be affected, not only for current, but also past and future accidents involving Toyotas.
This also leaves us with questions surrounding the diminished value of the vehicles. In determining that a vehicle is a total loss, what is the value? Can we apply this diminishing value factor when we are establishing what the insured’s or claimant’s vehicle is worth? How does this affect the resale and salvage value?”

Cavalcade of Risk #94 and general workers comp news notes

Thursday, December 17th, 2009

Cavalcade of Risk #94 is posted at My Wealth Builder. Among the many good posts, our friend Hank Stern offers some good news for the holiday season.
Our fellow blogger Joe Paduda was recently speaking at the Casualty Actuarial Society’s annual meeting on the topic of health reform and its impact on workers comp, and his remarks were covered by Insurance Journal. Paduda noted that, whether or not it gets enacted, health care reform is already having a major impact on workers’ comp. On the same topic, Roberto Ceniceros has a post about how healthcare reform is stalling some return-to-work advancements.
Jon Gelman on Genetics and Workers’ Compensation Claims. Also see our past posts on the topic: Brave new World and Genetic Testing And Workers Comp
Risk & Insurance has posted some interesting case law: In Michigan, a worker establishes asthma as compensable disability and in Colorado, a claim for a bad faith denial of benefits is considered to be separate and distinct from the underlying workers’ compensation entitlement claim and therefore is not precluded. However, an insurer can preclude certain issues in a subsequent proceeding.
We recently touted Mark Wall’s WC forum on LinkedIn as an excellent resource – but one feature that we neglected to mention is an active job board, where members can post a job or find a job. That’s a natural use for LinkedIn, particularly in today’s tough times – register for the Forum.
Winter safety tips from BLR Daily Advisor: Cold Weather Hazards: Are Your Workers at Risk? and Brrr-ing Down the Risk of Cold-Related Injuries
Finally, this item made us wonder if the North Pole’s workers’ comp coverage includes stress?