There has been a global reaction to the 2008 influenza pandemic. On April 25, 2009, the WHO director-General Dr. Margaret Chen declared the H1N1 virus outbreak as a “Public Health Emergency of International Concern.” The international declaration indicated that a coordinated international response was potentially necessary to prevent curtail the spread of the disease that was perceived as a public health risk. Recommendations to restrict both trade and travel may follow.
The United States has structured its response on both a State and Federal level to the 2009 influenza alert. The Public Health Service Act (PHS) permits the Secretary of Health and Human Service (HHS) to access a special emergency fund, allows or the use of unapproved medical treatments and tests, and allows waiver of certain reimbursement of Medicare and Medicaid expenses, and waives penalties and sanctions for violation of the HIPAA Privacy Rule requirements. Additionally, the President may issue an emergency declaration under The Stafford Act to co-ordinate emergency relief under State and Federal programs, ie. use and distribution of anti-viral medications.
The Federal government has sweeping powers under the PHS that could disrupt employment throughout the country. Recommendations for school closings will impact children and staff well beyond the approximate 700 facilities that were closed in the Spring of 2009 during the H1N1 initial outbreak. The Federal government under the PHS has authority to quarantine (interstate and border) and to isolate. An Executive Order (E.O. 13375, April 2005) enumerates the “quarantainable diseases.” Travel restrictions may be imposed to limit the spread of a communicable disease. Employees may not be permitted to board flights under either voluntary airline restrictions or through the Federally imposed “Do Not Board” lists.
These closings and restrictions have raised issues as to what programs, if any, will be able to provide benefits to the employees because of the involuntary nature of the closings and disruptions. A recent Harvard School of Public Health study reveals that 80% of businesses foresee severe problems in maintaining operations if there is an outbreak. The workers’ compensation system could be requested to provide temporary disability benefits for occupational disease absences on a massive scale never before experienced. Pre-emption by superseding emergency regulatory actions may curtail employment that will trigger the implementation of State workers’ compensation benefits. The employer and the workers’ compensation insurance carriers will be required to pay temporary disability and medical benefits as a direct consequence of efforts to prevent the spread of a communicable disease. The carefully crafted employee-employer notification structure integrated into the workers’ compensation system may be partially or entirely disrupted by the consequences and chaos of the global health emergency.
Workers’ Compensation claims arising out of the influenza pandemic of 2009 will need to fit into the convoluted framework statutory acts and regulation. Reimbursement from the usual collateral third-party reimbursement sources may be restricted. In addition to the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, enjoyed by the Federal and State governments, other legislation including The “Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act" (PREP Act) limits liability of others under certain specific emergency circumstances.
The enormity of the Pandemic presents a new and novel challenge to the system and one that must be considered by both Federal and State planners. Workers’ Compensation programs have adapted to emergencies before including natural disasters and terrorist attacks. The urgency of the situation requires that the system be vaccinated now.
Post a Comment