Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query medical. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query medical. Sort by date Show all posts

Monday, April 12, 2010

The Health Reform Act Charts a New Course for Occupational Health Care

The occupational healthcare program embodied in the recently enacted legislation has the potential for being the most extensive, effective and innovated system ever enacted for delivering medical care to injured workers. The “Libby Care” provisions, and its envisioned prodigies, will embrace more exposed workers, diseases and geographical locations, than any other program of the past. Potential pilot programs  will now be available to injured workers and their families who have become victims of the failed workers’ compensation occupational disease medical care system.
The legislation initially establishes a program for the identification, monitoring and treatment of those who were exposed to asbestos in Libby Montana where W.R. Grace formerly operated an asbestos (vermiculite) mine producing, among other things, attic insulation. The plant belched thousands of pounds of asbestos fiber into the air of the geographical area daily. Libby Montana has been declared a Federal Superfund Site and the asbestos disease that remains as its legacy has been declared a National Public Health Emergency.
The newly enacted national health care law will have profound effect upon the treatment of occupational disease.  Placed deep within the text of the bill (H.R. 3590), on page 836 (Section 1881A Medical Coverage for Individuals Exposed to Environmental Health Hazards), is the new occupational medical care model, “Libby Care.”  The Manager’s Amendment, embracing the concept of universal occupational health care, inserted in the final moments of the debate, will make all the difference in world to the future of medical care and the handling of work-related illnesses.
What We Learned From History
Historically it is well known that occupational diseases are problematic issues confronting workers’ compensation.They are problematic for all stakeholders in the system. For employers, it is difficult to defend a claim that may occur over a lengthy working period, ie. 280 days per year. Defending occupational disease claims has always been an elusive and a costly goal for employers and insurance carriers. Employees also are confronted with obstacles in obtaining timely medical benefits. Occupational disease claims are universally contested matter and medical care is therefore delayed until the claim is successfully litigated and potentially appealed. This process results in delay and denial of medical care and sometimes death.
In the 1950’s the insurance industry put tag-along verbiage in the statute to modify the 1911 workers’ compensation act to encompass occupational disease claims. This was not a philanthropic gesture, but one rather intended to shield Industry from rapidly spreading silicosis liability in civil actions emerging in the 1950s.
Over time, the failure of the workers’ compensation system to provide adequate medical care to injured workers suffering from occupational illness has given rise to the emergence of several attempted collateral benefit systems by the Federal government. The Black Lung Act-The Federal Coal Mine and Safety Act of 1969 established the Federal Black Lung Trust Fund, which obtained its revenue from the assessment of a percentage tonnage fee imposed on the entire Industry. In October 2000, the Federal government established The Energy Employees Occupational Compensation Program Act that provided a Federal bailout of liability for the monopolistic beryllium industry. The hastily enacted Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003 (SEPA) shielded pharmaceutical manufacturers from liability.  Following the horrific events of September 11, 2001, the Federal government quickly established The Victims Compensation Fund to compensate the victims and their families through an administrative system.
The largest transfer of economic wealth in the United States from Industry to the private sector, other than in the Attorney General’s thirty-eight State tobacco litigation, emanated from asbestos litigation which had its geneses in workers’ compensation.   The late Irving Selikoff, MD’s pioneering efforts in providing expert testimony, based upon his sentinel studies of asbestos workers in Paterson, NJ, created the trigger mechanism for a massive wave of claims for occupational health care. The program never did adequately nor efficiently or expeditiously provide medical care.
The workers’ compensation system did not provide an adequate remedy because of a constellation of reasons, and subsequently, the wave spread to civil litigation out of desperation for adequate benefits. Asbestos litigation has been named, "The Longest Running Tort” in American history. While the Fairness in Asbestos Resolution Act of 2003, failed to be release from committee, the insurance industry tried to stifle the litigation but the effort failed.  Asbestos litigation expanded into  bankruptcy claims that continue unabated and the epidemic of disease continues. The remaining cases in the Federal court system were transferred to Federal Multi District Litigation (MDL 875) and the majority are finally concluding after twenty years of Panel consolidation. Medical benefits were not a direct component of that system. Unfortunately, asbestos is still not banned in the United States and the legacy of disease continues at historic rates.
The Costs
In a study prepared in 2000 by Dr. Steven Markowitz for a book entitled “Cost of Occupational Injuries  and Illnesses”, it was revealed that the direct medical costs attributed to occupation illness by taxpayers, amount to $51.8 Billion dollars per year for the hospital physicians and pharmaceutical expenses. Overall workers’ compensation is covering 27% percent of the cost. This amounts to 3% of the National Gross National Product. The cost is passed on to: employers, insurance carriers, consumers, injured workers and the taxpayer. Medicare, a target of the cost shifting mechanism employer by Industry, continues its “pay and chase” policy in an effort to seek reimbursement under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act. All the stakeholders and the compensation systems have become increasingly bogged down as cost-shifting continues by Industry. The workers' compensation claims process has become stagnant. 
Reportable Data A Questionable Affair
The quantification of occupational illness data has been very problematic as it is based on sources of questionable reliability. The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) based its collection on employer driven safety reporting, ieNCCI), keeps its data and procedures under wraps.
Both the NY Times and Nebraska Appleseed have reported that there exists underreporting of occupational disease conditions in epic proportions. They report that the elements of fear and intimidation directed to injured workers compound the defense attitude of employers and the insurance industry resulting in a massive underreporting of occupationally related medical conditions.
Increased Hurtles for Compensability
There have been attempts over the years to integrate more claims statutorily into the workers’ compensation system to shield employers from civil action and resultant large liability verdicts. This resulted in a flood of occupational exposure claims into the workers’ compensation arena. An effort in the mid-1980’s, following the asbestos litigation explosion, was by Industry to contain costs and restrict the payment of occupational disease claims even further in the workers’ compensation.
The initial effort was to create higher threshold standards and requirements in the area of mental stress claims. That was quickly followed by efforts to limit orthopedic and neurological carpal tunnel claims.  Restrictive language interpreting what is peculiar to employment further limited all occupational disease claims.
Furthermore, scientific evidence proof requirements became increasingly difficult to surmount. Daubert type arguments emerged by the defense in the nations’ workers’ compensation forums where simplicity of a remedial and efficient benefit delivery program had existed in the past. Where a biological marker was not present, as was in asbestos exposure claims, the establishment of causal relationship was universally challenged.
Pre-existing and co-existing factors soon became other hurtles for injured workers and their families.  Medical histories of orthopedic difficulties such as back conditions soon complicated repetitive motion trauma litigation. Co-existing and pre-existing smoking habits, family genetics and obesity were yet another obstacle to recovery.
Societal Habits Changed
Life and the way we look at work have changed dramatically with the onset of technology. Off-premises work is becoming more and more common with the advent of Internet access and economic globalization. Defining the barriers between work and pleasure has grown to be exceedingly difficult.
People are working harder and longer. More chronic conditions are prevalent in older workers. Disease increases with age and results in more total disability claims.
Occupational Medical Costs
The compensability of occupational claims is much more difficult to sustain in court. In recent studies over 99.9% of occupational deaths and 93.8% of the medical costs of occupational disease were held to be non-compensable. Over 50% of the lifetime medical costs are incurred during the last year of one’s life.
The Legacy of The Libby Montana Gold Rush
In 1881 gold miners discovered vermiculite, a form of asbestos in Libby, Montana. In 1920 The Zonolite Company was established and began to commercially mine vermiculite. W.R. Grace bought the mining operations in 1963. In 1990 the mine was closed and production ended.
For decades W.R. Grace belched over 5,000 pounds of asbestos into the air in and around Libby on a daily basis. The residents who worked at the plant and their families and household contacts were exposed to asbestos fiber.  Mineworkers brought home the asbestos on their clothing. The unknowing inhabitants and their families  used the asbestos to fill their gardens, their driveways, the high school track, the little league field and in their attics for insulation.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) visited Libby in 1999 and investigated the incidence of disease and the contamination of the site. The EPA declared Libby a Superfund site in October 2002 and a physical clean-up began of the geographical area. The question of who would pay for the medical care of Libby remained an unknown.
A Manager’s Amendment
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT), Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, utilizing a mechanism known as “A Manager’s Amendment,” at the last moment, modified the Senate’s version of the Health Care Reform Bill. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act passed the Senate, ultimate cleared the House and was signed into law by President Obama on March 23, 2010. Section 10323, Medicare Coverage for Individuals Exposed to Environmental Health Hazards, 2009 Cong US HR 3590, 111th Congress, 1st Session (December 31, 2009).
Senator Bacus said,  “This provision is important because it will provide vital medical services to American who—through no fault of their own—have suffered horrible effects from their exposure to deadly poisons. It will provide vital medical services we owe these Americans under our commitment in the Superfund Act.”  The amendment initially provides for screening and medical care to residents of the Libby Montana asbestos contaminated site that was owned and operated by W.R. Grace. It essentially provides for universal health care.
“Libby Care” Is The New Occupational Medical Care Model Legislation
The Libby site qualified for the medical program because the hazardous asbestos contaminated site in Libby was deemed to be “a public health emergency” on June 17, 2009 as defined by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). While there are 1700 designated Superfund sites, Libby is the first site in the history of the program that has been designated as “a public health emergency.” The program may be expanded in adopted to other communities at the discretion of the Secretary of of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 
The plan authorizes a grant for initial medical screening purposes. The screening would determine if a medical condition is present that is attributable to the environmental exposure. It allows those individuals with a diagnosed medical condition due to the environmental exposure at the site to get Medicare services. The Secretary of the Department of HHS may establish additional pilot programs to provide additional medical care appropriate for the residents of contaminated communities so designated. The delivery of Medicare medical benefits will be directed to those “who have suffered horrible effects from their exposure to deadly poisons.”
The purpose of the legislation is  “…. to furnish such comprehensive, coordinated and cost-effective care to individuals…..” p2224 l3-1. It mandates the furnishing of “Flexible Benefits and Services,” for items, benefits or services NOT covered or authorized by the Act. It further authorizes the institution of “Innovative Reimbursement Methodologies,” for reimbursement subject to offsets for individuals “eligible to receive public or private plan benefits or legal agreement.” p2226 ll8-11. The Secretary of HHS will maintain “waiver authority.”
Charting A New Course
After a century of struggle, the United States now embarks upon a new course for occupational medical care. The law charts a new path for the delivery of  occupational disease medical benefits on a timely basis. It will permit researchers an avenue for the collection of epidemiological data so that the workplace can be made safer. All will benefit. The innovative legislation provides for a long awaited and much needed initiative to provide an efficient, responsive and coordinated treatment plan and preventive health program that hopefully will expand and will vastly improve occupational health care.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Workers’ Compensation 2013 – What Happens on the Other Side of The Fiscal Cliff?

The fiscal reality is that workers’ compensation is in greater jeopardy than ever before as the debate in Washington is not about the deficit at all. The debate is about government spending which includes health care.

Overall health care devours 18 percent of the US economy and amounts to 25% of the Federal budget.

Medical treatment for injured workers continues to be delayed, denied and limited under current workers’ compensation programs. Medical costs continue to be shifted to other programs including employer based medical care systems and the Federal safety net of Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration and Tricare.

While a trend continues to emerge to offer “Opt Out” and “Carve Out Programs,” they are not global enough to solve the critical budget deficit issues. The latest emerging trend is for employers to utilize ERISA based medical care plans to efficiently delivery medical care. In NJ a limited alternate dispute-resolution procedure between unions and employers has been introduced. See “NJ Care Outs –Another Evolutionary Step” authored by David DePaolo.

The US economy continues to be very weak. This in an ominous signal for the nation’s workers’ compensation program which is starved for premium dollars. Premiums are based upon salaries and real median incomes continued their dramatic decline over the last decade from $54,841 in 2000 to $50,054 in 2011. There just may not be enough dollars available in the workers’ compensation programs to pay for present and lifetime medical care.

Even the present Federal system leaves much to be desired. Whether Federal rationing medical care becomes a reality is unknown. Physicians are under economic scrutiny as the “Doc Fix” to limit provider fees continues as a cloud over all medical programs. The agreement reached by Congress still does not resolve the 26.5% percent cut reimbursement cut to physicians who treat Medicare patients. The law merely "freezes" payment to physicians.

Workers’ compensation programs presently structured provide no real economic incentive to monitor and compensate for more favorable medical outcomes. On the other hand, the Federal government, with broad and sweeping regulatory ability, is able to continue to make strides in many areas including present incentives to hospitals and proposed incentives to physicians to provide medical treatment with fewer complications and ultimate better outcomes


Steven Ratner in the NY Times points out the dramatic increase in the nation’s health care costs. He wrote, “…no budget-busting factor looms larger than the soaring cost of government-financed health care, particularly Medicare and Medicaid.”



Solving the economic gridlock of the country will require an approach to re-invent a medical program for injured workers. A global single-payer program under Federal control will eliminate duplicative administrative State and private efforts. The Federal government has the clout to provide efficient enforcement and co-ordination.

Now that we are on the other side of the fiscal cliff, the opportunity to be creative is possible. The US needs to transition to a single-payer health care system subsuming a medical care program for injured and ill workers who suffer both traumatic and occupational conditions.

Read more about the "single-Payer System" and workers' compensation

Workers' Compensation: A Single Payer System Will Solve the ...
Nov 29, 2012
The question is whether the nation will recognize that the US needs tol take the bold step previously taken by the European Community, finally adopt a single payer medical care program. The perpetual cost generator that ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

NJ Urged to Adopt Single Payer System for Workmens Comp
Jun 06, 2011
NJ Urged to Adopt Single Payer System for Workmens Comp. A coalition that has been formed in NJ is urging that the Garden State follow the lead of Vermont and establish a single-payer system. Single-payer movements ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

Vermont Single Payer System Called the Dawn of A New Era
Apr 03, 2011
The proposed state based Vermont Single-Payer health care system, that would embrace workers' compensation medical care, is gaining momentum. A recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine, citing increased ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/

RICO Issues Can Be Cured With A Single Payer Medical System
Mar 22, 2011
Vermont's proposed single payer system would seperate medical care from indemnity. Vermont's single proposed single-payer system would likely also provide a primary care doctor to every resident of Vermont. This would ...
http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
Related articles

Monday, November 24, 2014

When An Employer Should Not Deny Medical Care

It is always tricky slope for an employer to deny medical care based on a pre-existing medical condition. The employer must be absolutely certain that the proofs offered at trial will provide a credible basis for a ruling by the Court. Without that certainty, the employer could be subject to paying for uncontrolled medical care as well as for penalties.

Some employers avoid those dire consequences by providing medical care with reservation as the NJ Statute allows. The employer can then subrogate a claim against the correct primary medical provider should the claim be denied.

“The employer need not be asked to authorize medical care but may be responsible for payment for such care entirely in cases where the employer has disavowed compensability of a claim which is ultimately found to be compensable.” 38 NJ Practice §12.7, Workers’ Compensation Law, Jon L Gelman.

 An employer recently lost an appeal from such an adverse ruling. The employer who challenged compensability of a back injury and denied “legitimate” medical treatment based on an alleged pre-existing MRI.  The employer was held liability for medical treatment when the Court found the testifying radiologist on behalf of the petitioner to be a credit witness.

“Johnson [injured worker] presented extensive medical proofs, including the testimony of treating physicians and expert witnesses. This included the deposition testimony of Steven P. Brownstein, M.D., a practitioner of diagnostic radiology. Brownstein opined that the disputed MRI could not belong to Johnson because herniated discs and bone spurs do not spontaneously disappear. Brownstein also stated that the 1999 MRI films depicted a fifty-year-old man, while Johnson’s 2006 MRIs were of a man no older than thirty-five.

Additionally, the employee testified that he never had the prior MRI. The Court found the petitioner to be a credible witness.

The employer refused to pay for medical care following from a compensable accident at work. The Court ruled that the actions of the employer were incorrect and that the employer should be held responsible for paying for medical care since it was requested by the injured employee and subsequently denied by the employer. Following the rule in Benson v Coca Cola Co., 120 N.J. Super. 120 (NJ App. Div. 1972),  a NJ employer was responsible for medical care requested by the employee and denied by the employer as the accident was held compensable.

“The JWC also found, pursuant to Benson v. Coca Cola Co., 120 N.J.Super. 60 (App.Div.1972) , that Johnson “was well within his rights to seek outside treatment” based upon City’s denial of the April incident, the dilatory fashion in which it referred Johnson for treatment after the May incident, and its refusal to provide medical care even when recommended by its first medical examiner. He thus concluded the exception expressed in Benson  applied and that it would have been futile for Johnson to have continued to request coverage for medical expenses.

The Compensation Judge is giving a wide spectrum of discretion as to determine the credibility of the testimony of the witnesses:
“Our highly deferential standard of review is of particular importance in this case, where appellant’s principal points of error hinge on the JWC’s credibility determinations. See Hersh v. Cnty. of Morris, 217 N.J. 236, 242 (2014)  (quoting Sager, supra, 182 N.J. at 164).  The JWC has the discretion to accept or reject expert testimony, in whole or in part. Kaneh v. Sunshine Biscuits, 321 N.J.Super. 507, 511 (App.Div.1999) . The judge is considered to have “expertise with respect to weighing the testimony of competing medical experts and appraising the validity of [the petitioner’s] compensation claim.” Ramos v. M & F Fashions, 154 N.J. 583, 598 (1998 .

The Court went also reiterate the Belth Doctrine holding that the employer takes the employee as he finds him. While the Belth decision predates the 1979 Amendments to the NJ Workers’ Compensation Act it remains valid as to the exacerbation of an underlying medical issue. Belth v. Anthony Ferrante & Son, Inc., 47 N.J. 38, 219 A.2d 168 (1966).

“ Employers are responsible for treatment of a preexisting condition which is exacerbated by a work accident. Sexton v. Cnty. of Cumberland, 404 N.J.Super. 542, 555 (App.Div.2009) . The burden is on the employer to prove that the compensable accident was not the cause of the exacerbation. In this case, City did nothing more than attempt to prove that Johnson was lying about his 1999 medical conditions.  Even if City is correct, in the judge’s opinion, Johnson objectively established that the May 2006 accident caused him significant cervical and psychiatric injuries from which he currently suffers.


….
Jon L. Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author of NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson-Reuters). For over 4 decades the Law Offices of Jon L Gelman  1.973.696.7900  jon@gelmans.com  have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

PROTECT America's Injured Worker Medical Rights



Why This Is Important
The goal of this petition is to garner the support and representation of the American Civil Liberties Union in a due process lawsuit against the State of New York and/or other states within the United States under violations of the civil rights law pertaining to “Deliberate Indifference”, against injured worker’s legal rights to timely and qualified medical treatment thereof.
American workers were improperly stripped of their rights to sue their employer or the state for damages sustained in workplace accidents in 1917 before most of us were even born. Workers Compensation laws, in direct conflict with employee due process rights, quickly spread nationally. Only one lawsuit resulted, ironically, on behalf of employer due process rights. Despite the fact that this contract which lives in infamy violates both employer and employee rights, it has survived for 95 years.
Meanwhile, the "contract" has become so inequitable that millions of American workers are defrauded of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, after being thrown into an adversarial court system, where their $5.00 lawyers fight against six figure slingers who represent insurance companies that are raping America.
Injured workers are forced to obtain treatment from an inadequate, unspecialized list of providers, often with disastrous long term results and are barred from both timely and appropriate medical treatment through a complex paper trail of denials for basic medical care.
Further, their lifetime awards are severely limited, and their income reduced to nothing. Paid Independent Medical Examiners with little or no experience with the injury at hand are allowed to pass judgment on degrees of life time injury, literally whisking away damages for the benefit of the insurance providers who pay them. It's only a matter of time until Claimant’s are completely penniless and wind up on welfare, which lets the insurance company off the hook, but leaves the taxpayers holding the tab for social programs such as food stamps and medical coverage or social security disability, as the statutorily promised income protection and medical coverage is non-existent.
Additionally, Injured Workers who are legally entitled to lifetime medical benefits are finding these benefits are unavailable when they relocate from one state to another unless an out of state provider is willing to take on complex paper processes and pathetic reimbursement rates. Once injured in New York, you will never leave New York, or, in essence, you forfeit your right to coverage.
Due to low reimbursement, high medical malpractice risk (due to lack of timely treatment and authorization), and complex paper processes, the list of available providers is shrinking rapidly from year to year. Often, professional review processes are not employed by State government, and substandard physicians are the only ones left on the medical provider list.
Americans are being defrauded and led to believe they will be dealt with fairly, but all fairness has been removed from the system. Ultimately, Corporations are paying the highest insurance rates in history, while the Claimants are getting next to nothing. Meanwhile, the insurance industry makes a killing. The Workers Compensation contract is inequitable.
PROTECT AMERICAN INJURED WORKERS by repealing the 1917 Workers Compensation Act. In varying degrees, this violation of civil rights due process laws is creating a “deliberate indifference” situation, due to unrealistically low provider rates, medical malpractice risk, and shrinking provider lists. Provider fees and attorney fees haven’t been updated for years, and medical guidelines are being employed which haven’t even been ratified by the State, with each new guideline taking another chunk out of what little the injured worker is currently entitled to.
Before long, we’ll have to pay our employers when we’re injured, rather than the other way around.
The failure of Workers Compensation to meet the needs of injured workers is leading to lifetime injuries which were originally treatable and the collapse of American families.
Additionally, America’s social systems are picking up the tab as injured workers flock to obtain early social security, food stamps, and Medicaid due to their lack of coverage under Workers Compensation laws.
Ironically, while American workers are being ignored, American prisoners are getting free medical treatment. In fact, American prisoners are successfully being represented by civil rights lawyers across this country in order to obtain the same quality of care that Americans have come to expect, and that American Injured Workers desire.
If prisoners have rights under “Deliberate Indifference” guidelines to fair treatment, why not the American Worker?
Under current laws, Deliberate Indifference in relation to prisoners medical or safety rights is defined as a “a failure to act where prison officials have knowledge of a substantial risk of serious harm to inmate health or safety.” Crayton v. Quarterman, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103709 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2009) (Wikipedia, 2011)
Deliberate indifference is defined as requiring (1) an "awareness of facts from which the inference could be drawn that a substantial risk of serious harm exists" and (2) the actual "drawing of the inference." Elliott v. Jones, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91125 (N.D. Fla. Sept. 1, 2009). (Wikipedia, 2011)
In short, failure to provide timely and appropriate medical care resulting in damage is considered a civil rights violation.
Injured American Workers should never have been deprived of their constitutional right to a fair trial, representation, justice, humanity, and freedom. They should not be restricted to substandard medical care, any more than their legal representatives or medical providers should be asked to work for free.
Enough is enough. PROTECT AMERICAN INJURED WORKERS. It is clear based on hundreds of advocacy websites across the country that Workers Compensation does not work. Therefore, the band-aid approach needs to stop. We need real change, and a new system, which is fair and equitable to the American Worker.

Wednesday, April 10, 2019

An Employer Must Provide Accommodation for Off-Hours Use of Medical Marijuana


An employee licensed to use medical marijuana under the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act may proceed with a the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (LAD) action ageist his employer for unlawful termination. 

Monday, December 3, 2018

Fee Schedules: A defense of bureaucracy in workers compensation

Today's guest post was authored by Jon Rehm**, Esquire of the Nebraska Bar.


Former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie
Lawyers on “both sides of the v.” in Nebraska like to grumble about rules and regulations imposed by the workers’ compensation court.

Friday, February 1, 2013

Universal Medical and Workers' Compensation: It's Not "If", It's "When" - California

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) is going to definitely change the landscape of medical delivery over the coming future. Medical care afforded by workers' compensation delivery systems will ultimately be merged into a universal national program, despite all the opposition along the way.

My friend, and cycling inspiration, who keeps me trying to think I can enter the Tour de France while under the influence of Starbucks coffee, David DePaolo, points out that the "fusion" may be coming slowly through legislation of unintended consequences in California.
"The concept of universal care, 24 hour care, single stop shop, etc. has been floating for a couple of decades now with very little progress.

"But the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the signing of HB 1 back in February 2009, and other Federal health related laws and regulations including ERISA, have accelerated the fusion of workers' compensation medicine and general health medicine. Outsourcing MPN [Medical Provider Networks] oversight to a health care related agency is just another step towards this outcome.
David, an expert in analyzing what's around the curve, sees the next wave of change coming to workers' compensation. For so many reasons, including the expansion/reimbursement integration of the Medicare program, the writing is on the wall on this one. 

Every time the lobbyists think that have eliminated the imminent threat of Federal intrusion, ie. Enactment of The SMART Act, the reality of which is that the regulations will eat up the statute, and also their lunch. I plan to write more on The SMART Act in the coming weeks. Maybe that wasn't so smart after all for the cottage industries that supported it.

Sunday, January 11, 2015

High Compensation Medical Costs Raises Concern in New Hampshire

Medical costs now constitute a huge percentage of every workers' compensation claim. A recent editorial published in New Hampshire asserts that soaring and unequal medical costs have broken the workers' compensation system. Today's post is shared from concordmonitor.com/

Lawmakers should make 2014 the last year that doctors and other health care providers are guaranteed payment no matter how much they charge when a worker is injured on the job. The workers’ compensation system is broken.

The state, and the employers who pay into its workers’ compensation fund, have been paying two and three times the going rate for medical services when the patient is a workers’ compensation recipient. On average, surgeons charge 156 percent more, according to a report by the state’s Department of Insurance. Bills for radiology are 107 percent higher, 95 percent higher for occupational therapy and for something as simple as an ice pack, 300 percent more.

The extra paperwork required to document workers’ compensation cases and perhaps the added severity of the average injury, probably explains some of the price difference. But, human nature being what it is, it’s likely that, when the bill has to be paid no matter what the provider charges, the temptation to pad it can be irresistible, especially when providers can rationalize the surcharge by using it to offset underpayments in areas such as Medicare or Medicaid.

Thursday, October 24, 2013

California: Medical Delay and Denial Protested

Sedgwick vs. The People
Round 4: Sedgwick v. Debbye Mazzucca

Operating Room Nurse’s Injury no Emergency to Kaiser, Insurer: Defy Judge’s Order, Refuse to Provide Urgent Medical Care Injured Workers’ Advocates to Seek Penalties, Investigation

Injured Kaiser OR nurse Debbye Mazzucca tells how Sedgwick defied a judge's order to provide careThe California Applicants’ Attorneys Association (CAAA), whose members represent Californians injured on the job, today held a news conference outside Kaiser Foundation Hospital with Debbye Mazzucca, a former operating room nurse who was injured while working there. They called for sanctions against Sedgwick Claims Services, Kaiser’s workers’ compensation insurer, for defying a judge’s order to provide Ms. Mazzucca urgently needed medical care, causing her to lose her teeth. On February 11, 2013, the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) ordered that Sedgwick “shall” provide dental treatment to Ms. Mazzucca. After eight months, Sedgwick and Kaiser have still refused to do so. Sedgwick faces a relatively small monetary penalty for ignoring the court order, which means little to a huge corporation.

Operating Room Nurse Debbye Mazzucca, of La Mesa, has thirty-five years’ experience, and worked for Kaiser for 12 years. She was injured in 1998, when she tripped and fell over a parking lot barrier while at work. Kaiser treated her injured knee, but ignored multiple doctors’ reports that she had also injured her neck and back. In spite of four doctors reports confirming that fact, Kaiser denied that those injuries were from the fall. Now, due to complications from medications, and delays in approving medical care, Ms. Mazzucca has lost her teeth.

CAAA President Jim Butler said, “Insurers’ Utilization Review (UR) routinely delays and denies doctors’ legitimate requests for appropriate medical treatment. This is unnecessary and expensive, and has got to change. We’ve seen the evidence of out-of-control delay and denial in the 15,000 denials of recommended medical care in just the month of August. It’s time to bring UR to heel, and stop insurance carriers from using it as a routine roadblock.”

“A doctor, agreed to by the company and their insurer, determined this Kaiser operating room nurse’s injury was a result of her work accidents. The insurer still refused to provide urgent medical care. A judge ordered the insurer to provide urgently needed medical care. But Sedgwick continues to refuse medical care and Debbye lost all her teeth during the months of delay,” said Alicia Hawthorne, the president of CAAA’s San Diego chapter, and Ms. Mazzucca’s attorney. “This nurse has been in pain, and in need of medical treatment. Yet, the insurance company defied a judge’s order to provide care. Kaiser and its insurer have spent years fighting their responsibility to treat these injuries. Why does the State of California allow workers’ compensation insurance companies to further damage patients through delaying and denying medical care and disability compensation?”

 “Kaiser has failed to provide the care needed to heal my injuries,” Mazzucca told a news conference outside Kaiser Foundation Hospital in San Diego. “For years, all they would approve were painkilling drugs. These drugs’ side effects have caused more medical problems, including ‘dry mouth syndrome,’ which is insidious and dangerous. The drugs prevent your saliva glands from working properly, causing your teeth and gums to deteriorate.  Mine became infected, abscessed and threatened my health and my life. In 2010, my teeth started cracking and breaking off at the roots. I lost seven of my teeth this way.”

Sedgwick denied the dental treatment I needed, so Ms. Mazzucca took them to court.  In February 2013, the judge ordered Sedgwick to provide this urgent medical treatment. To this day, they have refused to do so. “It has been more than a year and a half since the medical expert the insurer agreed upon said I urgently needed dental care. The pain and infection became so unbearable in July that my doctor sent me to the emergency room, and 25 of my teeth were removed. I then spent the entire month of July in the hospital, in agony, and on painkillers. Kaiser and their insurance company are defying a judge’s order to provide urgently needed medical care,” said Mazzucca.

Today’s release is the fourth in CAAA’s series of cases spotlighting the abuse of Utilization Review (UR) and other methods for delaying and denying legitimate medical care and disability compensation in the workers’ compensation claims handling practices of insurers like Sedgwick Claims Management Services.



Monday, January 5, 2015

NJ Medical Costs Per Claim Increase

NJ is a jurisdiction where the employer has exclusive control over the selection of medical providers for workers' compensation claims. NJ also has no medical fee schedule. Neverthe less, WCRI report that medical costs per claim are increasing above the national average.

The report, CompScope™ Medical Benchmarks for New Jersey, 15th Edition, found medical payments per claim grew less than 3 percent per year from 2010 to 2012―about half the annual rate of the prior three years.  

The study cited changes in both key components of medical payments per workers’ compensation claim: the price paid for each service rendered and the number of services performed in each claim (generally called utilization).  

The study found a decrease or little change in utilization of many nonhospital services─a key factor in the recent slower growth in medical costs because payments for nonhospital care accounted for roughly two-thirds of medical payments in New Jersey. Slower growth in hospital outpatient payments per service was also a factor. Payments for hospital inpatient treatment continued to rise though. 

The recent trends coincided with an increase in the use of networks in caring for injured workers. States  that do not regulate reimbursements for medical care through a traditional fee schedule (like New Jersey) often use medical networks to help control medical costs through the management of claims and negotiated payment discounts.

Despite the recent slower growth, medical payments per claim in New Jersey remained higher than most of the 16 states WCRI studied, primarily due to higher prices paid for medical care. 

In several states, WCRI researchers saw slowdowns in claims growth similar to what they found in New Jersey, namely growth of 3 percent or less from 2010 to 2012, after growth of 4 to 8 percent a year, on average, from 2007 to 2010. Reasons for the slowdown differed by state, the study said. 

The Cambridge-based WCRI is recognized as a leader in providing high-quality, objective information about public policy issues involving workers' compensation systems.   

Click on the following link to purchase a copy of this study:http://www.wcrinet.org/result/csmed15_NJ_result.html

Monday, October 23, 2017

Electronic Medical Bills for Workers' Compensation Claims

The State of NJ has recently adopted an "electronic medical bill" process. N.J.S.A. 34:15-144, P.L 2016, c. 64. On October 16, 2017, Regulations were proposed to implement the Statute. Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, November 14, 2017, 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon.  The deadline for written comments is December 15, 2017.

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Medical Costs Soar in Workers' Compensation


The cost of medical care has increased tremendously according to a recently issued  report. The NCCI (National Council on Compensation Insurance Inc.) reports an increase in medical costs from 40% in the early 1980s to almost 60% currently.


NCCI reports that the increase appears to be national, "....Furthermore, although there are differences in the medical share by state, the change in the relative mix of states has had very little impact on the estimated countrywide share of medical and indemnity benefits."


The national workers' compensation medical delivery system has now become a focus of attention in light of the prospects of an overhaul of national health care system as medical costs continue to put American businesses at a economic disadvantage with foreign competitors. James Kvaal, in his article, "The Economic Imperative for Health Reform," highlights that "...ever rising medical costs are threatening to drive an unsustainable explosion in the national debt." Higher insurance premiums result in lower wages or lack of medical coverage all together and the loss of preventive care.


The costly and inadequate workers' compensation medical delivery system provides a fragmented approach to medical care. The system's focus should treat current medical conditions and provide for preventive care. The administrative costs savings in providing global coverage will translate into reduced delivery costs and a healthier work force. Some of the extra savings could be well spent on much needed medical research to avoid the need for costly medical care.

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

NJ Medical Payments Stabilize - But Why?

A recent study by an insurance based data organization has reported that NJ is experiencing a leveling of medical costs. The real question is "why?" Are declining medical benefits caused by fewer claims based on a shift of challenging employment status in the shared economy or a shift of medical costs under Obamacare to the private sector? 
Medical payments per workers’ compensation claim in New Jersey were stable from 2010 to 2013, in contrast to rapid growth in the 2008 to 2010 period, according to a recent study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI).
The report, CompScope™ Medical Benchmarks for New Jersey, 16th Edition, indicates results for New Jersey differed from those of other states WCRI studied, many of which experienced moderate to rapid growth in medical payments per claim.
The study found the following to be contributing factors: 
  • Increased use of networks, which may be linked to a decrease in prices paid for non hospital care. In recent years, two-thirds of total medical payments came from non hospital services.
  • Flat or decreasing trends in utilization of many non hospital services.
  • Slower growth in hospital outpatient payments per service.
  • A continued decrease in the percentage of claims that had hospital inpatient care.
“From 2010 to 2013, medical payments per claim with more than seven days of lost time rose less than 2 percent per year in New Jersey,” said Ramona Tanabe, executive vice president and counsel for WCRI. “From 2008 to 2010, payments rose nearly 10 percent per year.”
WCRI studied medical payments, prices, and utilization in 17 states, including New Jersey, looking at claim experience through 2014 on injuries that occurred in 2013 or earlier. WCRI’s CompScope™ Medical Benchmark studies compare metrics of medical costs and care from state to state and across time.

Sunday, December 19, 2010

Medical Witness Cannot Be An Advocate - Knee Replacement Surgery Authorized

A workers' compensation medical witness is not permitted to be become an advocate. A Judge of Compensation disregarded an insurance company medical witness when the medical expert "crossed the line from being a medical witness to an advocate."

In reaching her decision, Diana Ferriero, Judge of Compensation, rationalized that the insurance company's medical expert by the "convoluted cover letter sent by respondent counsel," along with medical records on the injured worker. 

The injured employer suffered two work related accidents as a mechanic for American Airlines. The first accident in to the right knee occurred in July 2004 and resulted in a partial menisectomy and no prolonged sequelae. The worker was symptom free until a second accident in January 2007when he slipped and fell on both knees and hands. The insurance company authorized 28 medical office visits, 15 Hyalgan injections, 14 aspirations and physical therapy for treatment to his right knee. A diagnosis was made by the treating physician and the insurance company refused the injured worker a total knee replacement claiming that the medical condition was unrelated to the 2nd accident of January 2007.

The workers' compensation Judge ordered an independent medical evaluation by a renowned specialist in knee and hip replacements, Mark A, Hartzband of the Hackensack University Medical Center. The judge concluded that, "Dr, Hartzband opined that petitioner's need for a right total knee replacement was directly and causally related to the accident of January 17, 2007."

The court also found that the insurance company's treating physician, who opined that the 2nd accident was unrelated to the need for a knee replacement, was "disingenuous given the contents of his office chart," and reasoned that the insurance company's authorized treating physician did not have an understanding of arthritis and its progression.

The court granted the injured workers' motion for medical treatment, evaluation and scheduling of the right knee replacement, and ordered the payment of temporary medical benefits.

Pepe v. American Airlines, CP No. 2008-5878, NJ DWC 2010), Decided November 11, 2010.