Last week I spoke at the Six Steps to Success conference in Whitehorse, Yukon. My contribution to the program was to bring the 300 member audience (from Canada, the U.S. and as far away as New Zealand), up to date with the demographic changes now underway that will change and shape the labour force for the next few decades. I highlighted why skill shortages are a growing concern, and the business case for making workplaces more accommodating to age-related conditions, acquired impairments, and an increasingly diverse workforce.
The lineup of other speakers was like a who’s who of the disability management and return to work experts, advocates, and role models from across North America. There is no way I can cover all the speakers and their messages but here are a few of the highlights.
Most readers will be familiar with Richard Pimentel either from his many speaking engagements or the movie about his life, Music Within. This retelling of his life story and his life’s work was entertaining, humorous, and poignant. His personal experience of being told that his brain injury and hearing impairment would make it impossible for him to go to college and his adventures with his friend, Art Honneyman, took the audience through a range of emotions and to resolve to see the person, not the disability.
John Kemp’s talk was just as engaging. I had read about him but this was the first time I had the opportunity to hear him. He was immensely entertaining and engaging. He co-founded American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD) and continues to be actively involved in that organization.
I’ve heard Gary Karp before but this session allowed the audience to view disability through his real life experience. His four books will be of interest to those with and without disabilities. He literally shows the audience what it means to “juggle” personal and societal issues of access, accommodation, and acceptance of people with disabilities as just people.
Each of the above speaks with authority from either a congenital or acquired disability. Others, such as Denise Bissonnette, spoke directly to those of us who work with and for people with disabilities. Poet, author, and an expert practitioner of true “job development,” her keynote address and workshop gave a practical yet novel point of view on identifying the unique genius and gifts of every client, and turning that into an advantage for employers. For those of us with a vocational rehabilitation background, her talk really resonated.
Speakers that will be familiar to those working in the workers’ compensation community in B.C. included Wolfgang Zimmerman, Blake Williams, and Winston Leckie. The Workers’ Compensation Board of the Yukon’s CEO, Valerie Royle, was not only a sponsor and a speaker, she and her band opened for Susan Aglukark. Susan made reference to the healing that is continuing in the aboriginal community through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The health outcomes of those who suffered in the residential school programs will continue to reverberate as disabilities for years to come.
A real surprise for me was the talk by Deb Russell. She is a Corporate Manager for Walgreen Co., the big U.S. drugstore chain. She told the story of a Walgreen’s vice-president who, because of his familiarity with the challenges of employment for his own child with autism spectrum disorder, spurred an outreach program to actively recruit, train, and retain people with disabilities. The idea was not to save money, get a competitive advantage, or gain good press. Instead, this was a fundamental commitment by the organization’s leadership to be proactive. Deb was hired to lead the initiative. She provided a DVD full of video and document clips that spoke to the success of the program.
Most interesting to me were Deb’s first-hand experiences of addressing the apprehensions of managers, staff and even the advocate community when dealing with the challenges of persons with epilepsy, autism, hearing loss, mobility, cognition, etc. She related these experiences in the real and practical terms of the workplace. She noted that none of the fears anticipated by the managers have happened in over five years of the program. Her willingness to share these practical experiences disarmed every objection I have ever heard on why firms can’t accommodate workers with particular disabilities. All of this has been accomplished without violating privacy concerns, lowering job standards or incurring large costs. Even the safety record shows workers with identified disabilities have no more time-loss injuries than their able-bodied counterparts; in fact, average time loss injuries are of shorter duration. This is a great example of corporate citizenship both in the practice and the sharing.
This was a great conference and the promised availability of presentations will be a great resource for participants, and ultimately for our communities.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
What does discriminatory action in worker's compensation look like?
I was asked in a meeting last week to give an example of a “discriminatory action” case under the Workers Compensation Act. In the discussion that followed, I realized there was considerable confusion over what that meant.
The word “discrimination” captures the concept of being treated unfairly, or differently, relative to others. The term “discrimination” has a specific meaning in the B.C. Human Rights Code, which prohibits “discrimination” on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or age. “Discriminatory action” under the Workers Compensation Act involves an employer’s retaliatory action against a worker for reason that the worker raised health or safety concerns and is regulated by the WorkSafeBC.
WorkSafeBC receives over two hundred discriminatory action complaints a year. Consider the following cases:
Making a claim is relatively straight forward. A worker may establish a “basic case” of discriminatory action by providing evidence the employer engaged in “discriminatory action” and the worker engaged in activities under section 151 of the Act, of which the employer was made aware, and there is a connection between the two such that the employer’s actions were in retaliation for the worker’s actions.
Assuming the complaint is within the Board’s authority to address, and that the worker’s evidence on its own establishes a basic case of discriminatory action, a WorkSafeBC prevention officer will contact the employer and share the concern.
In some cases, the prevention officer is able to settle the matter directly between the worker and the employer. In others, the prevention officer will complete an investigation and forward it to the Compliance Section at WorkSafeBC where investigations legal officers will generally first refer the complaint to mediation. If not settled at mediation, the investigations legal officers will then adjudicate the complaint after offering the parties an opportunity to provide submissions and further evidence.
Both the worker and the employer may appeal the decision of the investigations legal officer to the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT).
Claims of employer retaliation against workers for raising health or safety issues may not have a high public profile but they are important. Too often cases like these go unreported. Not only is the employer’s retaliation illegal, it hurts more than the worker. Other workers who observe such actions may be dissuaded from raising similar concerns. Even more critically, the health or safety issues may not be raised or corrected putting workers and other persons in the workplace at greater risk of injury, disease or even death.
For more information on this aspect of worker’s compensation, take a look at the resources on the WorkSafeBC website page on Discrimination Complaints.
The word “discrimination” captures the concept of being treated unfairly, or differently, relative to others. The term “discrimination” has a specific meaning in the B.C. Human Rights Code, which prohibits “discrimination” on the basis of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, or age. “Discriminatory action” under the Workers Compensation Act involves an employer’s retaliatory action against a worker for reason that the worker raised health or safety concerns and is regulated by the WorkSafeBC.
WorkSafeBC receives over two hundred discriminatory action complaints a year. Consider the following cases:
- A young worker burns her forearm operating a deep fryer in a local kitchen. There are no first aid supplies in the area so she leaves to get medical attention at the local emergency. She gets the treatment she needs and returns to work. She complains to her boss about the lack of first aid supplies. The next week, she finds her shifts have been cut, while everyone else’s shifts remain about the same.
- A worker has a job delivering and installing appliances. The employer requires home delivery staff to don disposable paper slippers when entering customer’s homes. The work says he is willing to put disposable booties over his work shoes, but refuses to remove his steel toed shoes for safety reasons. The employer insists on his workers removing their shoes when delivering and installing appliances and tells the worker he either complies or he will be fired. The worker refuses and his employment is terminated.
- A worker is directed by his lead hand to operate a particular piece of equipment. The worker refuses because he has not been trained on how to safely use the equipment in question. The worker, having refused the work, is sent home without pay for the rest of the day.
Making a claim is relatively straight forward. A worker may establish a “basic case” of discriminatory action by providing evidence the employer engaged in “discriminatory action” and the worker engaged in activities under section 151 of the Act, of which the employer was made aware, and there is a connection between the two such that the employer’s actions were in retaliation for the worker’s actions.
Assuming the complaint is within the Board’s authority to address, and that the worker’s evidence on its own establishes a basic case of discriminatory action, a WorkSafeBC prevention officer will contact the employer and share the concern.
In some cases, the prevention officer is able to settle the matter directly between the worker and the employer. In others, the prevention officer will complete an investigation and forward it to the Compliance Section at WorkSafeBC where investigations legal officers will generally first refer the complaint to mediation. If not settled at mediation, the investigations legal officers will then adjudicate the complaint after offering the parties an opportunity to provide submissions and further evidence.
Both the worker and the employer may appeal the decision of the investigations legal officer to the Worker’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal (WCAT).
Claims of employer retaliation against workers for raising health or safety issues may not have a high public profile but they are important. Too often cases like these go unreported. Not only is the employer’s retaliation illegal, it hurts more than the worker. Other workers who observe such actions may be dissuaded from raising similar concerns. Even more critically, the health or safety issues may not be raised or corrected putting workers and other persons in the workplace at greater risk of injury, disease or even death.
For more information on this aspect of worker’s compensation, take a look at the resources on the WorkSafeBC website page on Discrimination Complaints.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Will changes to CPP alter retirement and working patterns?
Canada’s social security program, the Canada Pension Plan (CPP) is changing. The changes could alter the retirement plans of those nearing retirement age and this may have consequences on the number of older Canadians who chose to continue to work past “normal retirement age”. Because some workers’ compensation systems use planned retirement ages for the determination of benefits and because the health and safety issues of older workers are complex, these changes may have important implications.
What are the changes? There are several but I want to focus on (a) changes regarding the penalties, and (b) incentives regarding the start of retirement benefits.
Prior to 2011, CPP retirement pensions were reduced by 0.5% per month for each month before age 65 that a contributor started to receive the CPP retirement benefit. For each month beyond the age of 65 that a contributor to the plan delayed the start of retirement benefits, a 0.5% increase per month was applied to the base retirement pension amount payable at age 65. So, prior to 2011 and using CPP at age 65 as the comparison, your CPP amount would be 30% lower if you started your CPP at age 60 or 30% higher if you delayed the start of your CPP to age 70.
Beginning in 2011, there are some increased incentives for delaying retirement beyond 65, and, beginning in 2012, there are some larger penalties for starting CPP retirement pensions under 65. The reductions and increases are being phased in but by 2016 that phase-in process will be complete. Here are the tables summarizing the changes:
• percentage reduction in monthly CPP commenced under 65:
Year % (monthly reduction)
2012 0.52
2013 0.54
2014 0.56
2015 0.58
2016 0.60
• percentage increase in monthly CPP commenced over 65:
Year % (monthly increase)
2011 0.57
2012 0.64
2013 0.70
By 2013, there will be a 42% advantage to starting CPP at age 70, and by 2016 a 36% disadvantage to commencing CPP retirement benefits at age 60 when compared to the benefit payable at age 65.
That’s the background. Now, what will this do to retirement patterns?
Some people are going to be re-thinking their retirement plans. For those who are or will be 60 in 2011 and were thinking about starting CPP, they may decide to commence CPP retirement benefits before the slightly larger reductions come into play. The difference is not great but starting in 2012, the penalties are just a little larger for each month before age 65 you retire...and the incentives just a little bigger for each month you delay.
Clearly, these changes are intended to encourage those in the labour force to continue working longer than at present. Other changes, including the post-retirement benefit for those who have retired then return to work, have the same impact of encouraging longer participation in the labour force.
Overall, these changes are not likely to cause a massive swing in retirement patterns. For those with large RRSP or defined benefit plans, these changes are not likely to have a big impact on their retirement plans. The changes will, however, be important to many workers for whom CPP will be the main source of retirement income, particularly those who turn 60 after 2011 and those still working over the age of 65.
The average retirement age for Canadians is about 63 at present. For those planning on using CPP retirement as a major part of their retirement income, age 70 may become an attractive target as their planned retirement date. And that will raise important issues in both compensation policy and prevention efforts for older workers.
For more information on the amendments to CPP, see the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada web page
What are the changes? There are several but I want to focus on (a) changes regarding the penalties, and (b) incentives regarding the start of retirement benefits.
Prior to 2011, CPP retirement pensions were reduced by 0.5% per month for each month before age 65 that a contributor started to receive the CPP retirement benefit. For each month beyond the age of 65 that a contributor to the plan delayed the start of retirement benefits, a 0.5% increase per month was applied to the base retirement pension amount payable at age 65. So, prior to 2011 and using CPP at age 65 as the comparison, your CPP amount would be 30% lower if you started your CPP at age 60 or 30% higher if you delayed the start of your CPP to age 70.
Beginning in 2011, there are some increased incentives for delaying retirement beyond 65, and, beginning in 2012, there are some larger penalties for starting CPP retirement pensions under 65. The reductions and increases are being phased in but by 2016 that phase-in process will be complete. Here are the tables summarizing the changes:
• percentage reduction in monthly CPP commenced under 65:
Year % (monthly reduction)
2012 0.52
2013 0.54
2014 0.56
2015 0.58
2016 0.60
• percentage increase in monthly CPP commenced over 65:
Year % (monthly increase)
2011 0.57
2012 0.64
2013 0.70
By 2013, there will be a 42% advantage to starting CPP at age 70, and by 2016 a 36% disadvantage to commencing CPP retirement benefits at age 60 when compared to the benefit payable at age 65.
That’s the background. Now, what will this do to retirement patterns?
Some people are going to be re-thinking their retirement plans. For those who are or will be 60 in 2011 and were thinking about starting CPP, they may decide to commence CPP retirement benefits before the slightly larger reductions come into play. The difference is not great but starting in 2012, the penalties are just a little larger for each month before age 65 you retire...and the incentives just a little bigger for each month you delay.
Clearly, these changes are intended to encourage those in the labour force to continue working longer than at present. Other changes, including the post-retirement benefit for those who have retired then return to work, have the same impact of encouraging longer participation in the labour force.
Overall, these changes are not likely to cause a massive swing in retirement patterns. For those with large RRSP or defined benefit plans, these changes are not likely to have a big impact on their retirement plans. The changes will, however, be important to many workers for whom CPP will be the main source of retirement income, particularly those who turn 60 after 2011 and those still working over the age of 65.
The average retirement age for Canadians is about 63 at present. For those planning on using CPP retirement as a major part of their retirement income, age 70 may become an attractive target as their planned retirement date. And that will raise important issues in both compensation policy and prevention efforts for older workers.
For more information on the amendments to CPP, see the Human Resources and Skills Development Canada web page
Friday, March 25, 2011
Is the blitz an effective prevention technique?
The following story was posted on the Australian Broadcast Corporation news website:
The story highlights a couple of important points. First, is that asbestos is the once and continuing threat to the long-term health of workers. Despite what we know about asbestos and what we can do to protect workers, workers are still getting exposed to asbestos without the protection they need. The second point is that we know many places where asbestos likely exists but that information is not always transmitted to everyone who might need to know.
The third aspect of this story is the compliance/enforcement technique employed: the blitz. By focusing attention on a few key issues (often in a particular region or industry) and publicly declaring their intention to enforce, the prevention organization heightens awareness. This may trigger questions in advance of the action that create consultation and education opportunities, and generates greater workplace vigilance and adherence to safe work procedures.
This technique is not unique to Australia. Other jurisdictions are using similar techniques but rarely do these initiatives gain the profile they do in Australia. Part of that may be timing. It is no coincidence that asbestos exposure stories—particularly in schools—have gained significant profile in the Australian press. The death of a young service station attendant in B.C. generated a lot of press, and a blitz of training and safety procedures in that industry. It also resulted in Canada’s first pay-before-you-pump standard.
I think the blitz is an important and effective prevention technique. It is important that people understand the blitz is just one technique of many, and one that will have a different impact on different workplaces. It certainly can heighten awareness and get people thinking and talking about safety. For workplaces with great safety cultures, the blitz will have little effect. Workers and employers in these workplaces know what to do and are doing it every day. The advance notice of a blitz will help other workplaces where the participants in the workplace mean well but do not have the knowledge or lack the skill or resolve to make safety a priority. The blitz announcement can be the impetus to make changes. For the minority of workplaces where participants know better (or should know better), advance notice of the blitz may cause some workplaces to take note, but it is unlikely to make any difference at all to places that routinely ignore safety precautions. For these workplaces, the orders or “improvement notices” issued when the blitz actually takes place, may prove to be the wake-up call that will start the workplace on the road towards a changed safety culture.
WorkSafe warns of asbestos blitz Posted Thu Mar 10, 2011 12:13pm AEDT
WorkSafe [Western Australia] will inspect a number of work sites across regional Western Australia to check safety provisions for asbestos.
Inspectors will target the construction and demolition industries over the next two months, checking licenses, protective equipment and waste procedures are up to standard.
Acting WorkSafe commissioner Lex McCulloch says businesses can face serious fines if they knowingly break the law.
"If they are made under 'duty of care' provisions of the Act then it can be up to $400,000," he said.
"If they are made under the regulations for an individual it can be $25,000 and for a company it can be $50,000, it just depends."
The story highlights a couple of important points. First, is that asbestos is the once and continuing threat to the long-term health of workers. Despite what we know about asbestos and what we can do to protect workers, workers are still getting exposed to asbestos without the protection they need. The second point is that we know many places where asbestos likely exists but that information is not always transmitted to everyone who might need to know.
The third aspect of this story is the compliance/enforcement technique employed: the blitz. By focusing attention on a few key issues (often in a particular region or industry) and publicly declaring their intention to enforce, the prevention organization heightens awareness. This may trigger questions in advance of the action that create consultation and education opportunities, and generates greater workplace vigilance and adherence to safe work procedures.
This technique is not unique to Australia. Other jurisdictions are using similar techniques but rarely do these initiatives gain the profile they do in Australia. Part of that may be timing. It is no coincidence that asbestos exposure stories—particularly in schools—have gained significant profile in the Australian press. The death of a young service station attendant in B.C. generated a lot of press, and a blitz of training and safety procedures in that industry. It also resulted in Canada’s first pay-before-you-pump standard.
I think the blitz is an important and effective prevention technique. It is important that people understand the blitz is just one technique of many, and one that will have a different impact on different workplaces. It certainly can heighten awareness and get people thinking and talking about safety. For workplaces with great safety cultures, the blitz will have little effect. Workers and employers in these workplaces know what to do and are doing it every day. The advance notice of a blitz will help other workplaces where the participants in the workplace mean well but do not have the knowledge or lack the skill or resolve to make safety a priority. The blitz announcement can be the impetus to make changes. For the minority of workplaces where participants know better (or should know better), advance notice of the blitz may cause some workplaces to take note, but it is unlikely to make any difference at all to places that routinely ignore safety precautions. For these workplaces, the orders or “improvement notices” issued when the blitz actually takes place, may prove to be the wake-up call that will start the workplace on the road towards a changed safety culture.
Friday, March 4, 2011
Does a timely First Report of Injury really matter or is it just a bureaucratic requirement?
My last post was about the requirements many jurisdictions have for timely reporting of work-injury claims to the workers’ compensation authority. I stated my reasons in support of timely reporting and compliance with whatever standard set by the jurisdiction: health and safety of other workers, timely treatment and benefits for the workers. A number of people commented to me about the post. Most agreed that there was some value in requiring employers report injuries on a timely basis but thought short legislative reporting requirements imposed by the workers’ compensation authority were simply a bureaucratic requirement. They argued there is no real harm done to the worker, the authority or the system if firms failed to comply with the first report of injury (FROI) requirements. Some also suggested that the penalties imposed and the fines collected in some jurisdictions looked more like a “money grab”.
As if in answer to these criticisms, a summary of recent research on this topic arrived in my inbox. Under the heading “Benefits of Early Reporting”, the article from the Utah Workers’ Compensation Fund noted:
· The faster the claims process is started, the lower the workers compensation costs.
· When there was a delay in reporting, there were higher medical costs, higher rates of attorney involvement and litigation, and disputes over causation, and longer than normal periods of disability for a particular injury.
· After seven days, claims costs began to escalate, and when reporting was delayed 29 or more days, the claims costs were about 45 percent higher.
· A study by a private insurer on back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and other nerve disorders, they discovered the claims filed five or more days after an injury cost an average of 15 percent more than similar claims filed within 48 hours
· Injuries reported within 10 days cost an average of $12,082. Injuries reported between 11 and 20 days cost $15,582, and those reported between 21 and 30 days cost $17,920 -- an increase of 48 percent more than those reported in 10 days or less.
I think this evidence is compelling. Holding employers to a timely FROI is not just a bureaucratic requirement. It has the proven potential to reduce both the human and financial costs of injury.
Regardless of any jurisdictional requirement for early reporting, getting that FROI in is a benefit to both workers and employers.
As if in answer to these criticisms, a summary of recent research on this topic arrived in my inbox. Under the heading “Benefits of Early Reporting”, the article from the Utah Workers’ Compensation Fund noted:
· The faster the claims process is started, the lower the workers compensation costs.
· When there was a delay in reporting, there were higher medical costs, higher rates of attorney involvement and litigation, and disputes over causation, and longer than normal periods of disability for a particular injury.
· After seven days, claims costs began to escalate, and when reporting was delayed 29 or more days, the claims costs were about 45 percent higher.
· A study by a private insurer on back injuries, carpal tunnel syndrome and other nerve disorders, they discovered the claims filed five or more days after an injury cost an average of 15 percent more than similar claims filed within 48 hours
· Injuries reported within 10 days cost an average of $12,082. Injuries reported between 11 and 20 days cost $15,582, and those reported between 21 and 30 days cost $17,920 -- an increase of 48 percent more than those reported in 10 days or less.
I think this evidence is compelling. Holding employers to a timely FROI is not just a bureaucratic requirement. It has the proven potential to reduce both the human and financial costs of injury.
Regardless of any jurisdictional requirement for early reporting, getting that FROI in is a benefit to both workers and employers.
Friday, February 18, 2011
How long should it take for a First Report of Injury to be submitted?
A story out of Jefferson City, Missouri, got me thinking about how long it should take an employer to file the first report of injury in worker’s compensation systems. Because timely prevention activity, claim decision making, and payment all depend on reporting, it stands to reason workers’ compensation agencies would be concerned about late reporting.
The Missouri story starts out as follows:
A-G Reaches Settlement Over Worker's Comp Violations
In Missouri, the prescribed time for an employer to submit the first report of injury (commonly called FROI in many states) is defined by the Workers' Compensation Law (Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 287 Section 287.380.1)
“Every employer or his insurer …shall within thirty days after knowledge of the injury, file with the division … a full and complete report of every injury or death to any employee for which the employer would be liable to furnish medical aid, other than immediate first aid which does not result in further medical treatment or lost time from work…”
In practice, employers in many U.S. states buy their workers’ compensation insurance from an insurance company and the insurance company staff or a third party administrator (TPA) manages the claim. Whether the employer or the insurer or the TPA informs the state agency of the time-loss injury, it must be done promptly. In Missouri, the promptness standard is set at 30 days.
The news story goes on to say that two TPAs who were the ones who were repeatedly delaying. In many jurisdictions, the TPA claims managers are located in a different state, and that was the case in this story. As part of their contracts with various firms, the TPAs had taken on the responsibility of filing the first report of injury to the State workers’ compensation agency. The Missouri “Division of Workers’ Compensation” requires the data to ensure timely and appropriate treatment of injured workers and to make certain workers and their families are fully aware of their rights. More generally, that FROI can be used as a prevention tool to protect other workers from similar injuries.
Rather than go to Court, the two TPAs settled with the Attorney General who was prosecuting the case. The two offending TPAs agreed to pay the state just over $100Kbetween them and to admit to violating the law. They also agreed to remain in compliance for two years and to take necessary steps to prevent recurrence of future violations.
Not every state applies a penalty for late filing of the first report of injury. To the best of my knowledge, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan and North Dakota are among those that don’t, but I don’t have any data on how compliant employers are in these states with the statutory reporting time (typically 7 or 14 days). Wisconsin has a 14-day standard and publishes an indicator which currently shows more between 74 and 77% of first reports of injury being received promptly.
In Canada, the timeframe for reporting an injury varies from province to province but three- and five-day standards are common. The AWCBC posts the reporting requirements and the penalties prescribed for late reporting and other offenses at the following links:
Ohio reports that 74.5% of FROIs are received within that state’s 7-day time limit. This is impressive but some other states do even better. Maine requires the FROI within 7 days after the employer receives notice or knowledge of an employee lost-time injury. The state has an 85% compliance target but was tracking closer to 90% in mid 2010. My understanding is that Maine applies a $100 penalty for each late filing (beyond 7 days) of the first report of injury.
Minnesota assesses progressively higher penalties for late filing of the first report of injury (typically beyond 10 days of the first day of disability) with each violation. The first offense in any 12 month period attracts a warning but penalties go up after that for each subsequent offense ($125, $250, $375, $500 for five or more offenses). In 2009, the state assessed 694 penalties totalling more than $309,000 for late filing of the first report.
Other states have even more aggressive levels. I understand Texas has a 10-day limit with a fine of up to $25,000 per day for violations although I could not confirm if any firms had to pay anywhere near that amount.
Does the threat of financial penalties increase timely reporting behaviour? I could not find any comparative figures on compliance or penalties but am interested in any data you may have on this topic. I think the Missouri story and published compliance rates from Maine and Ohio certainly send important messages about the seriousness with which these states take the timely reporting of injuries.
The Missouri story starts out as follows:
A-G Reaches Settlement Over Worker's Comp Violations
Attorney General Chris Koster said today he has reached agreements with two companies who violated Missouri’s workers’ compensation law by knowingly failing to report worker injuries to the Division of Workers’ Compensation within the prescribed time frame.
In Missouri, the prescribed time for an employer to submit the first report of injury (commonly called FROI in many states) is defined by the Workers' Compensation Law (Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 287 Section 287.380.1)
“Every employer or his insurer …shall within thirty days after knowledge of the injury, file with the division … a full and complete report of every injury or death to any employee for which the employer would be liable to furnish medical aid, other than immediate first aid which does not result in further medical treatment or lost time from work…”
In practice, employers in many U.S. states buy their workers’ compensation insurance from an insurance company and the insurance company staff or a third party administrator (TPA) manages the claim. Whether the employer or the insurer or the TPA informs the state agency of the time-loss injury, it must be done promptly. In Missouri, the promptness standard is set at 30 days.
The news story goes on to say that two TPAs who were the ones who were repeatedly delaying. In many jurisdictions, the TPA claims managers are located in a different state, and that was the case in this story. As part of their contracts with various firms, the TPAs had taken on the responsibility of filing the first report of injury to the State workers’ compensation agency. The Missouri “Division of Workers’ Compensation” requires the data to ensure timely and appropriate treatment of injured workers and to make certain workers and their families are fully aware of their rights. More generally, that FROI can be used as a prevention tool to protect other workers from similar injuries.
Rather than go to Court, the two TPAs settled with the Attorney General who was prosecuting the case. The two offending TPAs agreed to pay the state just over $100Kbetween them and to admit to violating the law. They also agreed to remain in compliance for two years and to take necessary steps to prevent recurrence of future violations.
Not every state applies a penalty for late filing of the first report of injury. To the best of my knowledge, Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan and North Dakota are among those that don’t, but I don’t have any data on how compliant employers are in these states with the statutory reporting time (typically 7 or 14 days). Wisconsin has a 14-day standard and publishes an indicator which currently shows more between 74 and 77% of first reports of injury being received promptly.
In Canada, the timeframe for reporting an injury varies from province to province but three- and five-day standards are common. The AWCBC posts the reporting requirements and the penalties prescribed for late reporting and other offenses at the following links:
Ohio reports that 74.5% of FROIs are received within that state’s 7-day time limit. This is impressive but some other states do even better. Maine requires the FROI within 7 days after the employer receives notice or knowledge of an employee lost-time injury. The state has an 85% compliance target but was tracking closer to 90% in mid 2010. My understanding is that Maine applies a $100 penalty for each late filing (beyond 7 days) of the first report of injury.
Minnesota assesses progressively higher penalties for late filing of the first report of injury (typically beyond 10 days of the first day of disability) with each violation. The first offense in any 12 month period attracts a warning but penalties go up after that for each subsequent offense ($125, $250, $375, $500 for five or more offenses). In 2009, the state assessed 694 penalties totalling more than $309,000 for late filing of the first report.
Other states have even more aggressive levels. I understand Texas has a 10-day limit with a fine of up to $25,000 per day for violations although I could not confirm if any firms had to pay anywhere near that amount.
Does the threat of financial penalties increase timely reporting behaviour? I could not find any comparative figures on compliance or penalties but am interested in any data you may have on this topic. I think the Missouri story and published compliance rates from Maine and Ohio certainly send important messages about the seriousness with which these states take the timely reporting of injuries.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Are there any great OH&S apps?
We are living in a time when digital information is literally at your fingertips. In the case of the WorkSafeBC’s Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, it has made the leap to an iPod/iPhone app. Seeing how well that works on my iTouch, it got me thinking about other apps that might be good to have at my fingertips.
You will find a lot of apps out there that range from a simple app that generates a white screen, (works really well as substitute flash light), to one that provides the complete US Army Survival Guide. There are also a lot of simple utilities that can provide a ready and useful source of information, when access to the internet or print material is not readily available.
A good companion item might be American Heart Association's Pocket First Aid & CPR. It has a price tag of $3.99, but it's a good reference document with an efficient interface to get the information you need in a hurry.
I was impressed with the idea behind Safety Button from Sillens AB. The app presents a single red HELP button that can be preprogrammed to text and or email your current position, make a distress call, and sound an alarm. You hope never to have to use the messaging part of the app. Chances are, however, there will be times when you want to initialize the app and have it ready. As soon as you turn it on, your GPS location is tracked by the application and updated to their server every 20 seconds, creating a record of time and location. The inexpensive app comes with three prepaid text messages: one for testing, and two just in case, with refills for the messaging part available for a nominal fee. There is no ongoing subscription required.
The YWCA apparently offers a free app that has some of the same functionality. This operates more like the portable personal siren alarms you may have seen marketed primarily to women. This one, however, comes with a feature that sends an emergency email to a pre-set contact, with the user's approximate coordinates. It can also send out an emergency call to a pre-programmed phone number. The YWCA Safety Siren comes with facts and contacts for women’s health and wellness.
I’m certain there many of you have found workplace health and safety apps for your iPhone, iPad, iTouch, Blackberry, Android, Galaxy… that are really useful. I am equally certain there are applications you would like to see created to fill a particular occupational safety and health need, (for example, I would like to see an app that allows you to decipher the meaning of a warning symbol just by pointing your device’s camera at it). If you have an OH&S app or an idea for one you would like to see, post a comment and maybe we can make workplaces safer one app at a time!
You will find a lot of apps out there that range from a simple app that generates a white screen, (works really well as substitute flash light), to one that provides the complete US Army Survival Guide. There are also a lot of simple utilities that can provide a ready and useful source of information, when access to the internet or print material is not readily available.
A good companion item might be American Heart Association's Pocket First Aid & CPR. It has a price tag of $3.99, but it's a good reference document with an efficient interface to get the information you need in a hurry.
I was impressed with the idea behind Safety Button from Sillens AB. The app presents a single red HELP button that can be preprogrammed to text and or email your current position, make a distress call, and sound an alarm. You hope never to have to use the messaging part of the app. Chances are, however, there will be times when you want to initialize the app and have it ready. As soon as you turn it on, your GPS location is tracked by the application and updated to their server every 20 seconds, creating a record of time and location. The inexpensive app comes with three prepaid text messages: one for testing, and two just in case, with refills for the messaging part available for a nominal fee. There is no ongoing subscription required.
The YWCA apparently offers a free app that has some of the same functionality. This operates more like the portable personal siren alarms you may have seen marketed primarily to women. This one, however, comes with a feature that sends an emergency email to a pre-set contact, with the user's approximate coordinates. It can also send out an emergency call to a pre-programmed phone number. The YWCA Safety Siren comes with facts and contacts for women’s health and wellness.
I’m certain there many of you have found workplace health and safety apps for your iPhone, iPad, iTouch, Blackberry, Android, Galaxy… that are really useful. I am equally certain there are applications you would like to see created to fill a particular occupational safety and health need, (for example, I would like to see an app that allows you to decipher the meaning of a warning symbol just by pointing your device’s camera at it). If you have an OH&S app or an idea for one you would like to see, post a comment and maybe we can make workplaces safer one app at a time!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
