Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts with label Australian Labor Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian Labor Party. Show all posts

Thursday, July 31, 2014

De Blasio’s Plans to Reduce Worker Health Costs Have a Carrot and a Stick

Today's post was shared by Steven Greenhouse and comes from www.nytimes.com



When Mayor Bill de Blasio announced his first labor agreements with New York City unions this spring, he was sharply criticized for granting long-awaited wage increases in exchange for promises of unspecified though sizable savings on health care expenses.
Now, some of the specifics are coming into focus: City officials and union leaders say they hope to push municipal workers to use walk-in clinics more and emergency rooms less, order generic drugs more often than brand-name ones, and buy them through the mail rather than at retail pharmacies to achieve bulk discounts.
The city hopes the unions will agree to steer workers to use centralized, cheaper centers for blood tests, X-rays or M.R.I.s, rather than having those tests performed in doctors’ offices or at costly physician-owned facilities. Patients who resist could face higher copayments, while savings would be passed on to the city in lower premiums.
The cost-cutting comes with high stakes: If the city and unions are unable to save a total of $3.4 billion on health care by 2018, a mediator will be empowered to order increases in workers’ premiums to cover the shortfall, officials said.
As an added inducement, if the unions help the city exceed that goal, the first $365 million in additional savings would be distributed as lump-sum bonuses to workers, officials said. Any savings beyond that would be split evenly between the city and its employees.
In interviews, Harry Nespoli, chairman of the Municipal Labor...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Friday, January 10, 2014

NJ COLA Bill is passed by the State Senate

Identical Bill Number: A4514    
Last Session Bill Number: S935   

Sweeney, Stephen M.   as Primary Sponsor
Madden, Fred H., Jr.   as Primary Sponsor
Beach, James   as Co-Sponsor
Norcross, Donald   as Co-Sponsor
Greenstein, Linda R.   as Co-Sponsor
Weinberg, Loretta   as Co-Sponsor
Vitale, Joseph F.   as Co-Sponsor
 
   

1/10/2012 Introduced in the Senate, Referred to Senate Labor Committee
5/17/2012 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
5/17/2012 Referred to Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
12/5/2013 Reported from Senate Committee with Amendments, 2nd Reading
12/19/2013 Senate Amendment (26-1) (Sweeney)
1/9/2014 Passed by the Senate (23-14)
1/9/2014 Received in the Assembly, Referred to Assembly Labor Committee

S613 ScaScaSa (3R) Concerns certain workers' compensation supplemental benefits. 
Labor 


Saturday, December 14, 2013

IMR: DWC Get Out of the Way

Today's post was shared by WorkCompCentral and comes from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com

What is the purpose of California's Independent Medical Review?

I have to ask myself this question in light of the most recent proposed changes to Utilization Review/IMR rules published by the Division of Workers' Compensation (a whopping 75 pages long, albeit inclusive of all changes since origin).

What causes me to pause is that the new amendments would allow a medical reviewer to, “issue a determination as to whether the disputed medical treatment is medically necessary based on both a summary of medical records listed in the utilization review determination,” and additional documents submitted by the employee or requesting physician.

In addition, the latest amendments reverse the order in which documentation is mandated - prior versions of the regulations said the claims administrator shall provide the documents. This version provides that the IMR entity shall RECEIVE documents. I don't know why this was done, but to me it seems bass-ackwards.

Finally the pending amendments would allow the DWC administrative director to determine that an IMR decision is not valid because the case should not have been deemed eligible for review in the first place. The rules would say the director can vacate an IMR determination at any point unless an appeal has been filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or the time to file an appeal has expired.

IMR was statutorily authorized by Labor Code section 4610.5, added via SB 863.

LC 4610.5 provides a list of the documents...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, November 25, 2013

Workers Compensation For Firefighters Discussed

The Kentucky Association of Firefighters is backing legislation that presumes full-time firefighters who develop cancer got it on the job and would be eligible to collect workers compensation.
Representatives of the organization made their case in Frankfort on Thursday (Nov. 21) before House and Senate members of the Interim Joint Committee on Labor and Industry.
They were joined by Doctor Virginia Weaver, a physician and professor of Occupational Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. She says the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is doing some important research on the hazards of firefighting.
“They’re looking at firefighters from three major cities in the U.S., comparing risk for cancer in firefighters with the general U.S. public, and found an increased overall risk for all cancer, an increased individual risk focused in the digestive tract and the respiratory tract.” –Virginia Weaver
The bill that’s being proposed in Kentucky would only apply to professional firefighters who’ve been on the job at least five years. It would also exclude those who smoke. 
[Click here to see the original post]

Friday, November 15, 2013

Work Comp Lost Focus

Today's post was shared from daviddepaolo.blogspot.com

As part of a cadre of bloggers that write about workers' compensation, one of the questions we are often asked to address is, "what is wrong with workers' compensation?".
The California Division of Workers' Compensation largely answered that question by announcing that they have issued a new, mandatory, Form 105 for unrepresented workers to request a panel qualified medical examination.
The new form is at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dwc/FORMS/QMEForms/QMEForm105.pdf. Take a look at it, and tell me if you were not savvy about workers' compensation if you would not be intimidated and/or befuddled by this monstrosity of bureaucratic irrationality.
I know what the administration was thinking when this form was developed - that claims administrators would be the primary users.
But if it is an unrepresented injured worker the amount of data required, the exact procedure to be used, and the terms contained within the form all conspire against a fair outcome for the claimant.
For instance, is an injured worker going to understand that the reason for a QME panel request is based on Labor Code section 4060, 4061 or 4062?
NO.
And unless your claim is relatively simple, are you, as an unrepresented, likely unsophisticated consumer of workers' compensation resources really going to know which medical specialty should be performing the services?
NO.
And how about this daunting, foreboding warning: "If you do not select a QME from the panel, schedule an appointment with the QME and inform the...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]

Monday, October 7, 2013

Is Workers' Compensation Just a Promise That Can't Be Kept?

Over a century ago, Labor and Industry made a promise to each other called Workers' Compensation. It was summary, remedial, inexpensive administrative process that provided benefits to injured workers through a social insurance program for work-related accidents and diseases. The shifting of wealth in the US has now made the workers' compensation program a target for reform and elmination. Today's post is shared from the opinion pages of the NYTimes.com.

As bad as things in Washington are — the federal government shutdown since Tuesday, the slim but real potential for a debt default, a political system that seems increasingly ungovernable — they are going to get much worse, for the United States and other advanced economies, in the years ahead.

From the end of World War II to the brief interlude of prosperity after the cold war, politicians could console themselves with the thought that rapid economic growth would eventually rescue them from short-term fiscal transgressions.

The miracle of rising living standards encouraged rich countries increasingly to live beyond their means, happy in the belief that healthy returns on their real estate and investment portfolios would let them pay off debts, educate their children and pay for their medical care and retirement. This was, it seemed, the postwar generations’ collective destiny.

But the numbers no longer add up. Even before the Great Recession, rich countries were seeing their tax revenues weaken,...
[Click here to see the rest of this post]