A few weeks ago, I attended a unique event in Regina. Since 1998, Saskatchewan WCB and the Ministry responsible for workplace inspections have been holding an annual Workers’ Comp Institute. The event is open to employers, union reps, safety officers, and human resource professionals - in fact, anyone with an interest workers’ compensation. Over the course of the two-day event, nearly 400 participants learned more about the Saskatchewan workers' compensation system and stakeholder responsibilities in it. Many of the concurrent sessions had basic titles like “Case Management”, “Employer Services (Assessments)”, and “Best Practices (Prevention and RTW)” but the content was of interest to novices to workers’ compensation and to students of workers’ compensation systems like me.
A highlight was the celebration of the “Safe Worker” and “Safe Employer” awards. The luncheon celebrating the nominees attracted media attention and was a fabulous platform for advancing the idea of changing safety culture. In introducing the Safe Employer award nominees, the Deputy Minister spoke about the importance of leadership noting that research shows about 70% of corporate culture is set from the top. Three nominees for employer and worker awards were highlighted in video presentations that showed how individuals and firms can make a difference in making workplaces safe and healthy.
Another highlight was the frank discussion about a new and controversial initiative: summary offense ticketing. The Ministry is seeking an amendment to the Summary Offence Regulations of the province. These regulations allow peace officers in different fields to issue tickets (like traffic tickets for speeding). The amendment would allow occupational safety officers to issue on-the-spot-tickets to employers, supervisors, contractors, owners, and workers for certain prescribed offences. The benefit of this program is the immediacy of issuing a ticket. If you are trying to change behaviour, a summary offense ticket is an immediate tool with far lower administrative costs than prosecutions or many administrative penalty processes. Still to be worked out would be the schedule of offences and the values of associated fines (large enough to be a deterrent without being overly punitive). Consultations are continuing to decide which behaviours should be targeted.
The event was well run and included a range of representatives from all stakeholder groups. In the plenary and concurrent sessions I attended, there was no grandstanding; yet, questions from all stakeholders were welcomed and respectfully addressed.
I’m not certain the Workers’ Comp Institute idea is right for every jurisdiction but it seems to be working well in Saskatchewan. Other jurisdictions may find inspiration from the the approach and the content of this very successful event.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
What are the top workers’ comp concerns among employers?
A recent US survey by Zywave (a Milwaukee-based provider of software-as-a-service solutions for the insurance and financial services industries) asked 3,500 employers about their top workers’ compensation concerns.
Cost containment topped the list. Cost containment in workers’ compensation includes actions employers can take to reduce their workers’ compensation costs. In the US, this generally refers to steps that reduce injuries, shift costs to second injury funds (similar to “relief of costs” in WorkSafeBC terms), control medical costs, and return injured workers to employment (shortening duration, and therefore, claim costs).
It is not surprising that 65% of those surveyed identified “having a safety-minded culture” as the most effective measure to control workers’ comp costs. If you have a safety culture, you know it. Developing a safety culture, however, is not that simple. Many firms don’t, and those that want to develop one often don’t know where to begin. Many workers’ compensation insurers have loss prevention and industry consultation services that can help but ultimately, it will be the workers, supervisors, managers and owners of firms that create a safety culture.
Another obvious measure to control costs is having a light-duty or return-to-work program. In this survey, nearly 60% of employers said they had such programs but only 45% of respondents reported having a written return to work policy.
About a third of employers surveyed were concerned about increasing exposures in the workplace and a perceived rise in fraud behaviours. Other top concerns related to the nature of the competitive market for workers’ compensation insurance in the US: renewals (cost and possibility of an insurer declining coverage), market availability of workers’ compensation insurance, and insurance carrier stability.
According to the survey, nearly 90% of employers had no idea what their “loss-free rating” was or were not familiar with the term. Loss-free ratings (sometimes called “minimum mod”) commonly appear on premium statements and relate to the experience modification part of the premium calculation.
The loss-free rating is the value the experience modification (often abbreviated to “experience mod” and expressed as a multiplier of the base premium) would be if there were no losses in the experience period. A firm with an experience mod of 1.10 on a base premium of $100,000 would have a total premium of $110,000. If the loss-free rating were 0.80, the total premium would be $80,000. Knowing the loss-free rating shows the employer, in this example, there was $30,000 of potential premium savings if there had been no losses.
The concept of loss-free rating may be hard to explain in US states but in WorkSafeBC’s case, the loss-free rating would be the maximum discounted premium. Showing the loss-free rating and the potential savings on a statement may well be a great conversation starter for firms with surcharges or demerit experience ratings. While it ignores the human suffering and costs, it does quantify savings available through prevention efforts. Put another way, many firms would find the cost and effort at prevention to achieve those savings far less than the cost and effort to achieve an equivalent profit from gross sales. There are also hidden costs associated with worker injuries that are not reflected in workers’ compensation premiums: lost time and lost experience or knowledge, for example.
With cost containment issues topping the list of US employer workers’ comp concerns, and given the apparent lack of understanding around the loss-free rating, the time is right for worker’ comp insurers to test new ways of communicating the value of investing in loss prevention, return to work and safety culture.
Cost containment topped the list. Cost containment in workers’ compensation includes actions employers can take to reduce their workers’ compensation costs. In the US, this generally refers to steps that reduce injuries, shift costs to second injury funds (similar to “relief of costs” in WorkSafeBC terms), control medical costs, and return injured workers to employment (shortening duration, and therefore, claim costs).
It is not surprising that 65% of those surveyed identified “having a safety-minded culture” as the most effective measure to control workers’ comp costs. If you have a safety culture, you know it. Developing a safety culture, however, is not that simple. Many firms don’t, and those that want to develop one often don’t know where to begin. Many workers’ compensation insurers have loss prevention and industry consultation services that can help but ultimately, it will be the workers, supervisors, managers and owners of firms that create a safety culture.
Another obvious measure to control costs is having a light-duty or return-to-work program. In this survey, nearly 60% of employers said they had such programs but only 45% of respondents reported having a written return to work policy.
About a third of employers surveyed were concerned about increasing exposures in the workplace and a perceived rise in fraud behaviours. Other top concerns related to the nature of the competitive market for workers’ compensation insurance in the US: renewals (cost and possibility of an insurer declining coverage), market availability of workers’ compensation insurance, and insurance carrier stability.
According to the survey, nearly 90% of employers had no idea what their “loss-free rating” was or were not familiar with the term. Loss-free ratings (sometimes called “minimum mod”) commonly appear on premium statements and relate to the experience modification part of the premium calculation.
The loss-free rating is the value the experience modification (often abbreviated to “experience mod” and expressed as a multiplier of the base premium) would be if there were no losses in the experience period. A firm with an experience mod of 1.10 on a base premium of $100,000 would have a total premium of $110,000. If the loss-free rating were 0.80, the total premium would be $80,000. Knowing the loss-free rating shows the employer, in this example, there was $30,000 of potential premium savings if there had been no losses.
The concept of loss-free rating may be hard to explain in US states but in WorkSafeBC’s case, the loss-free rating would be the maximum discounted premium. Showing the loss-free rating and the potential savings on a statement may well be a great conversation starter for firms with surcharges or demerit experience ratings. While it ignores the human suffering and costs, it does quantify savings available through prevention efforts. Put another way, many firms would find the cost and effort at prevention to achieve those savings far less than the cost and effort to achieve an equivalent profit from gross sales. There are also hidden costs associated with worker injuries that are not reflected in workers’ compensation premiums: lost time and lost experience or knowledge, for example.
With cost containment issues topping the list of US employer workers’ comp concerns, and given the apparent lack of understanding around the loss-free rating, the time is right for worker’ comp insurers to test new ways of communicating the value of investing in loss prevention, return to work and safety culture.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
What does the future hold for loss prevention and OH&S inspectorates?
I’ve been keeping a list of the issues, trends and ideas that will shape the future of prevention and occupational health and safety from the perspective of loss prevention (education, consultation) and compliance (regulation, enforcement). Here are my top 10 items:
1. Harmonization
The mobility of capital, labour and goods will drive harmonization across jurisdictions regardless of constitutional or sovereign boundaries. This does not mean there will be a race to the bottom but it does mean there will be an emergence of a minimum set of standards within nations and among trading partners. The challenge for regulators will be to agree on external or new standards. Watch for the rise of (and battles between) competing cross-jurisdictional standards.
2. Inter-agency “Task-force” models
No structure is ideally suited to address every problem. If we precisely define the problem in real-world terms, we can then design the interventions we need to actually fix them. We will see more inter-agency taskforces, “deputized” officers from one service to work with others, and letters of understanding between agencies in support of common causes (tracking bad actors across jurisdictions, for example).
3. Data-Driven Risk Intelligence
We live in a connected world. First aid records (or OSHA logs in the U.S.), paper claims records, and regulations that require firms to keep records of exposures are obsolete, wasteful, inaccurate and (almost) useless from a loss-prevention or OH&S regulatory program perspective. Data — not the paper or forms that contain them — are what will drive change. I don’t mean tables full of numbers published once a year but instantly available, continuously updated, visualized data with intuitive drill-down capabilities. These will become the standard mechanism for programmed inspections, blitzes, and targeted prevention interventions.
4. Social Media Response
Complaint phone lines are almost obsolete; yet, prevention agencies have failed to enlist the millions of people with smartphones on and near jobsites to detect and correct imminent risks. Agencies are all very quick to have a web presence going out, to tweet newsroom items and to seek Facebook followers. Embracing social media this way has the added benefit of fostering societal change.
5. Information transparency
Ultimately, it is information in the hands of consumers, workers and investors that will drive change. The Alberta Ministry of Human Services already allows anyone to search a firm's injury rate, fatality count, injury cost, and Certificate of Recognition status, among other things. The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration provides online access to enforcement inspection reports. Workers, shareholders, business partners and others are going to demand this information. Information has the power to shape reputation, and reputation matters. Transparency will drive better safety and health performance. Transparency will detect discrepancies and injury-reporting/claim suppression. More importantly, it will allow for the creation of new approaches to safety and health that we have not yet conceived.
6. Technology-enabled monitoring
For years, safety regulators and insurers have declined receiving copies of documents such as safety minutes, First Aid ledgers, OSHA 300 logs, and exposure records required by regulation. Regulators struggle with the question of what to do with such data. Smart systems change all that. All safety committee minutes can be received and analysed by intelligent software; all OSHA 300 logs (not just a sample) can be retrieved and the sampling error eliminated to reveal new trends; and exposure records can be used for epidemiological “surveillance” particularly for long-latency occupational diseases. Technology-enabled monitoring has the power to protect people.
7. Safety-culture detection
You can’t fake your safety culture. If you have a good one, the safety rules are almost redundant. If you have a bad one, safety rules don’t matter. Yes, promoting and studying safety culture have been around for years. Detecting safety culture in the dozen or so questions inspectors, loss prevention officers, managers or workers can ask will diagnose the state of a safety culture quickly.
8. There’s an app for that!
Black box monitoring in transport vehicles, forklifts, cranes; “setting memories” cached on processing equipment; personal monitors for sound, motion, stress, toxins; worksite cameras capable of recreating three-dimensional scenes; “augmented reality” and “vertuality” capable of overlaying blue prints, floor plans, wiring and systems on camera images from any perspective in real time . . . there will be (and in some cases, there already is) an app for that. Best practice will make such apps common. And some insurers will offer discounts to employers with them in place.
9. Technology-enabled causation tree analysis
Software and intelligent systems will increasingly be used to establish exactly how safeguards, barriers and defences all failed to protect workers from injury. The antecedents that create active and passive defects allowing the inherent risk to harm injured workers will be actively mapped and the information used for prevention (and potentially third-party liability). Technology will enable (insurers will expect, regulators will demand) shorter periods to complete such analysis.
10. Tele-inspection
Insurers for underwriting and loss prevention purposes and OH&S inspectorates for compliance and enforcement purposes will use technology to do inspections at a distance. More worksites will be “visited”, more lives saved by adding this technology to the repertoire. Whether via remote connection or by use of a proxy (via the on-site safety manager with a helmet-mounted camera), inspections with corrective orders, penalties and even stop-work orders will be issued based on this sort on tele-inspection.
That’s the top of my list.
What do you think? What’s on your list?
1. Harmonization
The mobility of capital, labour and goods will drive harmonization across jurisdictions regardless of constitutional or sovereign boundaries. This does not mean there will be a race to the bottom but it does mean there will be an emergence of a minimum set of standards within nations and among trading partners. The challenge for regulators will be to agree on external or new standards. Watch for the rise of (and battles between) competing cross-jurisdictional standards.
2. Inter-agency “Task-force” models
No structure is ideally suited to address every problem. If we precisely define the problem in real-world terms, we can then design the interventions we need to actually fix them. We will see more inter-agency taskforces, “deputized” officers from one service to work with others, and letters of understanding between agencies in support of common causes (tracking bad actors across jurisdictions, for example).
3. Data-Driven Risk Intelligence
We live in a connected world. First aid records (or OSHA logs in the U.S.), paper claims records, and regulations that require firms to keep records of exposures are obsolete, wasteful, inaccurate and (almost) useless from a loss-prevention or OH&S regulatory program perspective. Data — not the paper or forms that contain them — are what will drive change. I don’t mean tables full of numbers published once a year but instantly available, continuously updated, visualized data with intuitive drill-down capabilities. These will become the standard mechanism for programmed inspections, blitzes, and targeted prevention interventions.
4. Social Media Response
Complaint phone lines are almost obsolete; yet, prevention agencies have failed to enlist the millions of people with smartphones on and near jobsites to detect and correct imminent risks. Agencies are all very quick to have a web presence going out, to tweet newsroom items and to seek Facebook followers. Embracing social media this way has the added benefit of fostering societal change.
5. Information transparency
Ultimately, it is information in the hands of consumers, workers and investors that will drive change. The Alberta Ministry of Human Services already allows anyone to search a firm's injury rate, fatality count, injury cost, and Certificate of Recognition status, among other things. The U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety & Health Administration provides online access to enforcement inspection reports. Workers, shareholders, business partners and others are going to demand this information. Information has the power to shape reputation, and reputation matters. Transparency will drive better safety and health performance. Transparency will detect discrepancies and injury-reporting/claim suppression. More importantly, it will allow for the creation of new approaches to safety and health that we have not yet conceived.
6. Technology-enabled monitoring
For years, safety regulators and insurers have declined receiving copies of documents such as safety minutes, First Aid ledgers, OSHA 300 logs, and exposure records required by regulation. Regulators struggle with the question of what to do with such data. Smart systems change all that. All safety committee minutes can be received and analysed by intelligent software; all OSHA 300 logs (not just a sample) can be retrieved and the sampling error eliminated to reveal new trends; and exposure records can be used for epidemiological “surveillance” particularly for long-latency occupational diseases. Technology-enabled monitoring has the power to protect people.
7. Safety-culture detection
You can’t fake your safety culture. If you have a good one, the safety rules are almost redundant. If you have a bad one, safety rules don’t matter. Yes, promoting and studying safety culture have been around for years. Detecting safety culture in the dozen or so questions inspectors, loss prevention officers, managers or workers can ask will diagnose the state of a safety culture quickly.
8. There’s an app for that!
Black box monitoring in transport vehicles, forklifts, cranes; “setting memories” cached on processing equipment; personal monitors for sound, motion, stress, toxins; worksite cameras capable of recreating three-dimensional scenes; “augmented reality” and “vertuality” capable of overlaying blue prints, floor plans, wiring and systems on camera images from any perspective in real time . . . there will be (and in some cases, there already is) an app for that. Best practice will make such apps common. And some insurers will offer discounts to employers with them in place.
9. Technology-enabled causation tree analysis
Software and intelligent systems will increasingly be used to establish exactly how safeguards, barriers and defences all failed to protect workers from injury. The antecedents that create active and passive defects allowing the inherent risk to harm injured workers will be actively mapped and the information used for prevention (and potentially third-party liability). Technology will enable (insurers will expect, regulators will demand) shorter periods to complete such analysis.
10. Tele-inspection
Insurers for underwriting and loss prevention purposes and OH&S inspectorates for compliance and enforcement purposes will use technology to do inspections at a distance. More worksites will be “visited”, more lives saved by adding this technology to the repertoire. Whether via remote connection or by use of a proxy (via the on-site safety manager with a helmet-mounted camera), inspections with corrective orders, penalties and even stop-work orders will be issued based on this sort on tele-inspection.
That’s the top of my list.
What do you think? What’s on your list?
Monday, February 6, 2012
How does the workplace have to change because of the aging boomers?
Last week I participated in a CBC series entitled, "The Silver Ceiling". The overall series concept was driven by the leading edge of the baby boom generation hitting 65 this year. My contribution was to speak about how workplace safety and health in light of this demographic shift.
As we age (and as many of us know first hand) our bodies change. Our eyesight and colour perception change beginning in our forties and fifties, muscle strength and hearing acuity decline, and co-morbidities such as high blood pressure and diabetes increase. Obesity is also associated with age. Reaction time slows and recovery times increase.The need for medications often increases and with these often come side effects such as drowsiness.
But it's not all bad news. We certainly gain experience as we age. That experience and knowledge allow us to avoid many of the risks in workplace environments.
How should the workplace change? I'm not suggesting radical steps. Improved task lighting, for example, will allow aging eyes to work more comfortably. Removing clutter from control panel designs to shop bench workstations will prevent errors that may cause injury. Improving ergonomics by limiting weights, supplying lifts (and the training and support so they are actually used), increasing the font size on signs, reducing tripping hazards through high contrast step edges, adding handrails — all of these changes are low cost adaptations that can improve workplaces for all workers not just aging boomers.
I believe we'll see more and more older workers in the workplace. I recently downloaded data from Statistics Canada’s Labour Force Survey that demonstrates a fundamental shift in workplace demographics that I believe will continue for years to come. The following chart shows the number of workers in the B.C. labour force who are younger (under 25) and older (aged 55 and older). The largest core of workers is aged 25 to 55 and is not shown on the chart but as you can see, older workers now outnumber younger workers in the BC employed labour force.
I’m not the only one who is predicting that we'll see more older workers in the labour force in the future. We don’t have enough young people to replace those that are retiring so many older workers will be enticed to work longer. Some will have to work longer for financial reasons but most will want to work to some degree because research has shown, work is good for you. Even if older workers want more flexibility so they can travel and enjoy family, many will also want an opportunity on a part-time basis to be engaged in the labour force, and use the skills and knowledge they've developed over a lifetime.I gave about a half dozen interviews on this topic and one interviewer turned the question around and asked what older workers can do about their workplace health and safety. The traditional advice still stands: eat right, get plenty of exercise, get regular check ups, etc. Be aware of changes in your body, the effects of aging, age-related health conditions, and the effects of medications you may have to take. When you think about it, that advice applies to everyone.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Why should we care about a privatization proposal for another workers’ compensation fund?
The idea of privatizing workers’ compensation state funds comes and goes regularly. West Virginia’s state fund (BrickStreet), and Nevada’s state fund (Employers Insurance Company of Nevada, Inc. or simply Employers), are recent examples of this trend. In Colorado, Pinnacol, the state workers’ compensation fund is the latest subject of a privatization proposal.
Pinnacol is a competitive state fund. Most state funds are “competitive” but North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming operate as “exclusive” (monopolistic) state funds. All Canadian workers’ compensation systems are similar to this latter group. Pinnacol has 55,000 employer/policy holders, covers about a million workers (57 percent of the market), and is the “insurer of last resort” in Colorado. Pinnacol is the fourth largest of the 25 state funds in the U.S.
At present, Pinnacol is a state entity. The proposal is for Pinnacol to separate from the state and become a “mutual insurance holding company”. The proposal was submitted to the governor in November with the support of Pinnacol’s board of directors and CEO. Under the plan, Pinnacol would be owned by its policyholders (the employers who pay the premiums) although it could be demutualized and become a shareholder-owned and traded corporation at some point in the future.
The advantages for Pinnacol include autonomy from government, the potential to expand market beyond the borders of Colorado, and (suggested) improved value to policyholders. For government, the positives include the creation of a taxpaying entity, a 40 percent stake in the new company, and dividends the state could use as much needed revenue. Denver Post blogger Tim Hoover has gone so far as to say that failing to privatize Pinnacol would be a costly mistake.
Reaction to the proposal is not all positive. A report in the Denver Business Journal suggests many businesses are reluctant to back the plan. According to the Northern Colorado Business Report, one obvious concern is over rates. Privatizing would change Pinnacol’s tax-free status and this alone could put upward pressure on rates.
I strongly believe every state has the right to determine what’s best for its own jurisdiction. There are many examples of well-performing private insurers, competitive state funds, Canadian workers’ compensation boards, and exclusive state funds that deliver excellent value to both workers and employers. That said I have seen no compelling study that shows private provision of workers’ compensation insurance delivers lower employer cost or better results for workers, than existing Canadian workers’ compensation boards or U.S. exclusive state funds, particularly over the long run. The one good study on the topic found a slight advantage in terms of employer cost when provided by exclusive funds (but because of data limitations, the study’s authors concluded there was no clear difference between exclusive and private provision).
Privatization is a one-way solution. While I can recall Hawaii (1996) and Maine (1993) creating new workers’ compensation state funds (HEMIC and MEMIC) in private workers’ compensation markets, I can’t recall any private insurers being bought out or taken over by a state (on an ongoing basis). The drivers in one jurisdiction may signal “coming attractions” for another.
Privatization is often proposed as a quick fix for what are usually more fundamental issues. Access to insurance, competitive rates (often related to funded status and sustainability), cost control, and improved service top the list of drivers behind many proposals to change models. Every workers’ compensation insurer — private, public, competitive or other model — needs to keep an eye on its performance on these important dimensions.
Pinnacol is a competitive state fund. Most state funds are “competitive” but North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming operate as “exclusive” (monopolistic) state funds. All Canadian workers’ compensation systems are similar to this latter group. Pinnacol has 55,000 employer/policy holders, covers about a million workers (57 percent of the market), and is the “insurer of last resort” in Colorado. Pinnacol is the fourth largest of the 25 state funds in the U.S.
At present, Pinnacol is a state entity. The proposal is for Pinnacol to separate from the state and become a “mutual insurance holding company”. The proposal was submitted to the governor in November with the support of Pinnacol’s board of directors and CEO. Under the plan, Pinnacol would be owned by its policyholders (the employers who pay the premiums) although it could be demutualized and become a shareholder-owned and traded corporation at some point in the future.
The advantages for Pinnacol include autonomy from government, the potential to expand market beyond the borders of Colorado, and (suggested) improved value to policyholders. For government, the positives include the creation of a taxpaying entity, a 40 percent stake in the new company, and dividends the state could use as much needed revenue. Denver Post blogger Tim Hoover has gone so far as to say that failing to privatize Pinnacol would be a costly mistake.
Reaction to the proposal is not all positive. A report in the Denver Business Journal suggests many businesses are reluctant to back the plan. According to the Northern Colorado Business Report, one obvious concern is over rates. Privatizing would change Pinnacol’s tax-free status and this alone could put upward pressure on rates.
I strongly believe every state has the right to determine what’s best for its own jurisdiction. There are many examples of well-performing private insurers, competitive state funds, Canadian workers’ compensation boards, and exclusive state funds that deliver excellent value to both workers and employers. That said I have seen no compelling study that shows private provision of workers’ compensation insurance delivers lower employer cost or better results for workers, than existing Canadian workers’ compensation boards or U.S. exclusive state funds, particularly over the long run. The one good study on the topic found a slight advantage in terms of employer cost when provided by exclusive funds (but because of data limitations, the study’s authors concluded there was no clear difference between exclusive and private provision).
Privatization is a one-way solution. While I can recall Hawaii (1996) and Maine (1993) creating new workers’ compensation state funds (HEMIC and MEMIC) in private workers’ compensation markets, I can’t recall any private insurers being bought out or taken over by a state (on an ongoing basis). The drivers in one jurisdiction may signal “coming attractions” for another.
Privatization is often proposed as a quick fix for what are usually more fundamental issues. Access to insurance, competitive rates (often related to funded status and sustainability), cost control, and improved service top the list of drivers behind many proposals to change models. Every workers’ compensation insurer — private, public, competitive or other model — needs to keep an eye on its performance on these important dimensions.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
What is the true incidence of work-related disease?
The following story from New Zealand (NZ) caught my eye:
New figures reveal work kills 1000 a year
(by Tom Hunt, Fairfax News, 19/12/2011)
Work is killing 1000 of us a year.
New figures, which also show there are 17,000 new case [sic] of work-related disease in New Zealand each year.
Think about that for a minute. New Zealand is a country with a population of 4.3 million — almost identical to the population of British Columbia — yet work-attributed fatalities and diseases in NZ far exceed those we accept at WorkSafeBC. What accounts for the difference?
When I tracked down the source report for the headline, the reasons became clear. NZ is taking a holistic approach to the issue of occupational illness: on a population basis, the incidence of occupational disease that can be attributed to work will always be greater than incident rates calculated from individual cases where causation must be adjudicated.
On a population basis, NZ finds:
about 700–1,000 deaths occur every year in New Zealand from occupational disease, particularly cancer, respiratory disease and ischaemic heart disease (such as coronary artery disease) 2–4 percent of deaths of all people over the age of 20 are due to occupational disease, and 3–6 percent of all cancer deaths in people aged 30 or older are due to occupational cancer
there are about 17,000–20,000 new cases of work-related disease every year.
What the population-incidence approach illustrates is that workers and society are paying a huge price for work-related illness and disease. If B.C. has a similar population-incidence ratio then the true cost of work-related disease is far greater than the 2,750 occupational disease claims first accepted and paid in 2010.
Leaving aside the under-recognition and under-reporting of many occupational diseases, this high incidence alone requires action. The NZ Action Plan proposes a focus on five specific hazards:
• occupational carcinogens;
• respiratory hazards;
• noise;
• skin irritants; and
• psycho-social hazards.
Exactly what actions will be taken to address each of these hazards will depend to some extent on the sector. To assess whether any of the actions has been effective will require data on exposure to health hazards in the working population. NZ is actively developing a surveillance system through the Centre for Public Health Research at Massey University.
Recognizing the true incidence of occupation disease changed the dialogue in NZ. The focus is not on claims costs but human and societal costs. More importantly, there is a refined focus on prevention rather than jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see how their strategy and surveillance systems develop. There may be important lessons for other jurisdictions.
New figures reveal work kills 1000 a year
(by Tom Hunt, Fairfax News, 19/12/2011)
Work is killing 1000 of us a year.
New figures, which also show there are 17,000 new case [sic] of work-related disease in New Zealand each year.
Think about that for a minute. New Zealand is a country with a population of 4.3 million — almost identical to the population of British Columbia — yet work-attributed fatalities and diseases in NZ far exceed those we accept at WorkSafeBC. What accounts for the difference?
When I tracked down the source report for the headline, the reasons became clear. NZ is taking a holistic approach to the issue of occupational illness: on a population basis, the incidence of occupational disease that can be attributed to work will always be greater than incident rates calculated from individual cases where causation must be adjudicated.
On a population basis, NZ finds:
about 700–1,000 deaths occur every year in New Zealand from occupational disease, particularly cancer, respiratory disease and ischaemic heart disease (such as coronary artery disease) 2–4 percent of deaths of all people over the age of 20 are due to occupational disease, and 3–6 percent of all cancer deaths in people aged 30 or older are due to occupational cancer
there are about 17,000–20,000 new cases of work-related disease every year.
What the population-incidence approach illustrates is that workers and society are paying a huge price for work-related illness and disease. If B.C. has a similar population-incidence ratio then the true cost of work-related disease is far greater than the 2,750 occupational disease claims first accepted and paid in 2010.
Leaving aside the under-recognition and under-reporting of many occupational diseases, this high incidence alone requires action. The NZ Action Plan proposes a focus on five specific hazards:
• occupational carcinogens;
• respiratory hazards;
• noise;
• skin irritants; and
• psycho-social hazards.
Exactly what actions will be taken to address each of these hazards will depend to some extent on the sector. To assess whether any of the actions has been effective will require data on exposure to health hazards in the working population. NZ is actively developing a surveillance system through the Centre for Public Health Research at Massey University.
Recognizing the true incidence of occupation disease changed the dialogue in NZ. The focus is not on claims costs but human and societal costs. More importantly, there is a refined focus on prevention rather than jurisdiction. It will be interesting to see how their strategy and surveillance systems develop. There may be important lessons for other jurisdictions.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Who creates disability?
Amid the weekend events, Santa Claus parades and early Christmas shopping, you may have missed the pronouncement of December 3 as the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. This UN designated day was acknowledged and proclaimed in many jurisdictions including BC but received little in the way of coverage. I read a couple of news releases but mainstream media was pretty limited.
Does this lack of coverage surprise me? Not really; but it does disappoint me. One might have expected something more would be said about the advances society has made since the first International Year of Disabled Persons 30 years ago. There has been much to celebrate but there is so much more to accomplish.
In the world of workers’ compensation, we see many injuries that cause work-related disability. Unfortunately, we have little time to focus on what that disability really means to the person (and family) affected or to think about what actually creates the disability.
I know there are very specific legal and policy terms for disability. In our legislation, the Workers Compensation Act speaks about Temporary Total Disability, Temporary Partial Disability, and Permanent Partial Disability; we even have a reference in Section 16 (vocational rehabilitation) to “handicap”. For a moment, however, suspend this legalistic terminology and think about disability in terms of the person in society.
A person with a disability is first and foremost a person. He or she is entitled to respect, dignity and inclusion. In the context of workers’ compensation, work may have caused the injury but the consequence for the person with a disability is really not created by the injury; rather, the degree of disablement is created by our societal response. We--you, me, Cousin Eddy, the worker’s employer and the family next door-- we make up society and we create that societal response.
As the World Health Organization puts it, “… disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives”. I’m not saying there are easy answers here but I am saying that as society becomes more aware, accepting and accommodating of persons with disabilities, the quality of their lives and the richness of our society will grow. From a workers' compensation perspectives, safe and timely return to productive, durable real employment epitomizes inclusion and has the potential to reduce disability.
The International Day of Persons with Disabilities reminds us, the relatively and temporarily able members of society, to champion the elimination of both the proximal and societal causes of disabilities.
Does this lack of coverage surprise me? Not really; but it does disappoint me. One might have expected something more would be said about the advances society has made since the first International Year of Disabled Persons 30 years ago. There has been much to celebrate but there is so much more to accomplish.
In the world of workers’ compensation, we see many injuries that cause work-related disability. Unfortunately, we have little time to focus on what that disability really means to the person (and family) affected or to think about what actually creates the disability.
I know there are very specific legal and policy terms for disability. In our legislation, the Workers Compensation Act speaks about Temporary Total Disability, Temporary Partial Disability, and Permanent Partial Disability; we even have a reference in Section 16 (vocational rehabilitation) to “handicap”. For a moment, however, suspend this legalistic terminology and think about disability in terms of the person in society.
A person with a disability is first and foremost a person. He or she is entitled to respect, dignity and inclusion. In the context of workers’ compensation, work may have caused the injury but the consequence for the person with a disability is really not created by the injury; rather, the degree of disablement is created by our societal response. We--you, me, Cousin Eddy, the worker’s employer and the family next door-- we make up society and we create that societal response.
As the World Health Organization puts it, “… disability is a complex phenomenon, reflecting an interaction between features of a person’s body and features of the society in which he or she lives”. I’m not saying there are easy answers here but I am saying that as society becomes more aware, accepting and accommodating of persons with disabilities, the quality of their lives and the richness of our society will grow. From a workers' compensation perspectives, safe and timely return to productive, durable real employment epitomizes inclusion and has the potential to reduce disability.
The International Day of Persons with Disabilities reminds us, the relatively and temporarily able members of society, to champion the elimination of both the proximal and societal causes of disabilities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
