Brutal, graphic video aimed at teens: don't text while driving
There's been quite a lot of media coverage on the high risk of texting while driving and several states are lining up to issue bans or restrictions on the practice. We recently featured a texting while driving game that let's you get a rough gauge of how you'd fare while texting at the wheel. But this simulator really soft pedals things in comparison to the approach that some countries are taking in getting the message out. Nothing that we've seen or read here in the U.S. has the raw, visceral power that a recent British public service announcement aimed at teens.
Before watching, please be warned that this video is very graphic.
There's no disputing the danger that texting while driving poses - the studies are adding up. One of the more recent is a study by the VirginiaTech Transportation Institute, which found that texting truck drivers were 23 times more at risk of a crash or near crash event than nondistracted drivers. But there has been some debate about the effectiveness of shock advertising as an awareness and prevention tactic - some see them as highly effective, while other think that viewers tend to tune them out. This is an issue that came up about two years ago when Ontario's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board released a series of graphic public service announcements designed to highlight worker safety.
As for the subject of this ad - currently, 18 states ban texting for all drivers. The Governors' Highway Safety Association maintains and updates a handy chart of state cell phone and texting laws - check back often, as this is an issue on several state legislative dockets.
Health and safety news from the blogosphere
Money-Driven Medicine - Maggie Mahar, one of the regular Health Wonk bloggers who we admire, is author of the book Money driven medicine: the real reason health care costs so much. Her book has been made into a documentary by Alex Gibney, the producer noted for his documentary expo Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. This Friday night, Bill Moyers Journal will preview excerpts of Money Driven Medicine, which Moyers cites as one of the strongest documentaries he has seen in years. It bears checking out. For more about the documentary, including a trailer, see moneydrivenmedicine.org. You can also follow Maggie's blog posts at Health Beat.
Meanwhile, in Business Insurance, Joanne Wojcik writes that two surveys project that healthcare benefit costs will increase by more than 10% in 2010. Aon Consulting projects an average 10.5% increase, while Segal Co. sees cost increases ranging between 10.2% and 10.8% for managed care plans.
Nanoparticles - the NIOSH Science Blog highlights recent research related to occupational disease and nanoparticles. Nanotechnology is the discipline of technology that works at a molecular level with particles that are less than 100 nanometers in size. Earlier this year, the CDC released Approaches to Safe Nanotechnology (PDF), which offers recommendations for specific precautions to protect workers who are exposed to any level of nanoparticles. Learn more about research and risk management at the NIOSH Nanotechnology site.
Fatal Sunshine - Time recently featured an article on the plight of California farm workers, who frequently do not have adequate protection from heat stroke and basic precautions to prevent heat-related illness. While California state law mandates heat stress standards, many employers do not adhere to those standards. The ACLU and the law firm Munger, Tolles & Olson are suing California's occupational health and safety agency on behalf of the United Farm Workers, workers who became sick, and relatives of workers who died from heatstroke.
Employer Pandemic Planning - While there are dueling projections for the potential impact of the H1N1 flu this fall and winter, it pays to be prepared. Safety Daily Advisor offers an abbreviated workplace pandemic planning checklist based on CDC recommendations. For more detailed planning information for work and home, see Flu.gov.
More on work suicides - We noted last week that a recent Bureau of Labor Statistics report showed that workplace suicides increased by 28% in 2008. At Comp Time, Roberto Ceniceros looks at the issue of workplace suicide in light of a recent Indiana appeals court ruling in which a widow was denied benefits related to her husband's suicide.
Taking the job home - Jon Gelman blogs about a recent CDC study showing that workers who are exposed to lead can transport it home. The CDC suggests certain precentive measures to minimize risk to other family members.
Fitness for Duty - Fred Hosier of SafetyNewsAlert posts about how to deal with employees who are consistently unsafe through a comprehensive fitness for duty program.
OSHA - Is OSHA back in the business of enforcement? The Safety Duck thinks that issuance of 142 citations and $576,000 in penalties against Sims Bark Co. and Sims Stone Co. signifies that it is.
Dying to Find Fault in Wyoming
Wyoming might be a good place to work, but it's also a good place to die at work. The mortality rate for occupational injuries is three times the national average, with 15.6 fatalities per 100,000 workers. Many of these fatalities occur in the oil fields, where "roughnecks" make pretty good wages in exchange for working in relatively dangerous conditions. As DeeDee Correll writes in the Los Angeles Times, everyone shares the goal of improving safety on the far-flung job sites, but there is a continental divide in how to achieve that goal.
Most oil workers are employed by independent contractors, who provide the bodies for the intense work in the fields. The fields are owned by big corporations. On one side of the fence you find workers and their advocates, who want to be able to hold the big corporations liable for what happens on the job. They want to be able to sue the big corporations when they suffer catastrophic injuries or deaths on the job.
The counter argument says that workers comp - carried by the employers of these field workers - should be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries.
At issue here is the question of accountability and control: under current Wyoming case law, injured workers have to prove that the operator maintained "pervasive" control over the site. This is a very high standard, because the daily operations at these sites are primarily under the control of the independent contractors. By lowering the standard of control, worker advocates would make it easier for workers to sue the oil companies for damages.
Denim Versus Suits
The battleground for this dispute is the Wyoming legislature. As is so often the case, there is considerable theatricality on display. Many of the roughnecks lobbying for a change in the law show the scars of their chosen occupation. They are dressed in denim and baseball caps. Their opposition, lawyers for the oil companies, wear the indispensable dark suits.
The "suits" counter the compelling visual evidence of the roughnecks with some dubious arguments, maintaining, for example, that any change in the law would expose home owners to liability for injuries to contractors working on their houses. That's a red herring, as homeowners rarely exercise significant control over the work environment of their contractors.
There should be enough middle ground in this dispute to fashion a meaningful compromise. Wide-open litigation is rarely the best way to go. The legislature should set specific standards for safe operating procedures in the oil fields. Oil companies should be held accountable for meeting these standards. Only if they are demonstrably negligent in maintaining and documenting these standards should the door be opened to law suits. At the same time, the state should bolster the benefits available to workers who are killed or severely injured on the job.
The "exclusive remedy" provision of workers comp is a standard well worth preserving. It's tempting to carve out exceptions, but each exception becomes a fault line in the fundamental compromise that is workers comp. We are nearing the 100th anniversary of comp in America (New York 1911). For the most part, it is a remarkably successful experiment in public policy. The law makers of Wyoming would do well to keep this success in mind: by all means tinker with the statute to make it more responsive to 21st century working conditions, but don't mess with the premise. This is not the time to find fault with "no fault."
News roundup: Health Wonk Review, WC recovery, fatalities, joint & several, AIG and web tools
Things are sure getting ugly out there in the national debate on health policy. Read what the health policy wonks in the blogosphere have to say about all this - a fresh Health Wonk Review is posted over at David Williams Health Business Blog.
The recovery and WC - Joe Paduda offers an excellent analysis of the likely impact of economic recovery on various segments of the workers comp industry in his post The recovery is coming - what does that mean for work comp? He offers a word of caution for employers: as hiring increases, so too will injuries. "The good folks at the NCCI have looked at the impact of economic recoveries on workers comp, finding "Job creation is related to an increase in the proportion of workers who are inexperienced in their current job and, hence, more likely to sustain a workplace injury."
Work fatalities down, suicides up - The good news: "A total of 5,071 fatal work injuries were recorded in the U.S. in 2008, down about 10 percent from a total of 5,657 fatal work injuries reported for 2007, according to preliminary government figures." However, some of the drop is attributed to the economy and a decline in the number of hours worked. Researchers also think that numbers may be lagging since budget constraints at reporting agencies may have delayed classifying cases. One of the most troubling parts of the report is that workplace suicides were up 28 percent to a series high of 251 cases in 2008 - "...the highest number ever reported by the fatality census. Suicides among protective service occupations rose from 14 in 2007 to 25 in 2008." Read more about the report in Insurance Journal's story, Fatal Work Injuries Dropped 10% in 2008; Down 20% in Construction.
Joint and Several Liability in action - Roberto Ceniceros blogs about the hefty bills that some New York employers are facing after the demise of self-insured trusts (aka SIGs) in his post Self insuring comp claims has its risks. About 1,789 will be footing about $133 million in unfunded workers comp claims - an average of about $74,000 per employer.
AIG wins one - An NCCI suit alleging that AIG has been shortchanging state workers comp pools for 35 years was dismissed by a federal judge yesterday, but the suit was dismissed on a legal technicality, with no ruling on the actual charges.
Web tools - here are a few good web tools we've come across in our travels:
Choose the Best Search for Your Information Need - a guide to some specialty search engines
Wordnik - An ongoing project devoted to discovering all the words and everything about them. We're liking this, and also recommend our long-term favorite word tool, OneLook.
Meeting ticker - log the number of attendees, enter the average hourly rate, and start your engines. You'll be surprised to learn how much meetings cost!
ParkWhiz - find and reserve parking before you get there. Enter a date, time & address and get nearby parking garages, rate comparisons, and distance from your destination.
Down for everyone of just me? - enter the address of a website to see if the site is having a widespread problem or if the problem with the page is on your end. It's surprisingly useful!
The Cost of Getting Better
Earlier this week, my colleague Julie Ferguson blogged an intriguing case in Indiana, where Adam Childers, an obese pizza baker, suffered a back injury when he was hit by a swinging freezer door. He was unable to get better due to his obesity. As a result, the Indiana court ordered the employer to pay for weight reduction surgery, to be followed by back surgery, all the while providing temporary total disability benefits to Childers. A relatively large claim becomes a very large claim due to the prospect of sequential surgeries. This case raises some fascinating issues concerning the cost of getting better. Boy, does it ever!
There is no need to repeat the succinct summary of the case provided in Julie's blog. For those interested in the details, here is the actual opinion of the court.
This case raises two compelling issues: First, the degree to which employers become responsible for non-work related factors in recovery; and second, the looming specter of widespread discrimination against people whose pre-existing conditions make virtually any injury substantially more difficult to manage.
Taking People as They Are
Employers cannot set a high bar for "health and wellness" and then exclude everyone who falls below it. Any health standards must be grounded in business necessity. As we have seen in recent blogs, employers might be in a position to reject applicants who smoke (depending upon the state), but they generally cannot arbitrarily turn away people with co-morbidities that may impact recovery times: diabetes, heart conditions, asthma, etc.
In the Indiana case, at the time of the injury Childers weighed 340 pounds and smoked 30 cigarettes a day. In its opinion, the court did not consider him "disabled" as defined in the ADA: his weight did not "substantially impact" one or more major life activities. Thus, despite his weight, he did not fall into a protected class.
Once injured, however, Childers's weight became a major obstacle to his recovery. Indeed, any obese person suffering from back, hip, knee, leg or ankle injuries would find recovery extremely difficult, as their spine and limbs are routinely stressed by the sheer weight of the body. Under Indiana law, the pre-existing condition of obesity combines with the work-related injury to produce a single injury. With the pre-existing condition absorbed into the workers comp claim, the employer is responsible for any and all treatments required to bring the worker to maximum medical improvement.
There is a definite logic to the Indiana court's position. The problem is not in its protection of Childers, but in the implications for all Indiana employers as they are confronted with hiring decisions.
When in Doubt, Leave Them Out?
With the Childers's decision, employers in Indiana have been put on notice that at least one conspicuous part of the labor pool - obese people - bring the risk of substantially higher costs following injuries in the workplace. As employers make day to day hiring decisions, they may well have the image of higher costs of injuries associated with obesity in the back of their minds. Given two applicants, one obese, one within normal weight ranges, employers may be tempted to ignore other important hiring factors such as motivation and experience and reject the obese applicant.
Thus the unfortunate consequence of providing extensive benefits to Childers is that it may have the proverbial "chilling effect" on the job prospects for others with similar weight problems. The obese already suffer from the daily judgment of a thousand eyes: their weight problems are impossible to hide. Now they may have to overcome the additional burden of fearful Indiana employers, who exclude them from employment in the vague hope of keeping the costs of comp under control.
California Fraud Bill: The Solution is a Problem
California has a California-sized fraud problem, with much of action in the medical arena. Unscrupulous providers are billing for services that are never provided, often under the names of people who have never been injured. It's identity theft targeted at businesses, not individuals. In California's $7 billion comp system (down from $21 billion just a few years ago), fraud is a significant cost driver.
Here is just one example of medical billing fraud, involving the Los Angeles Unified School District. In August of 2006 the district received a bill for lab services involving a principal injured in a fall the previous May. Unfortunately for the perpetrator, one James Wilson, the principal had died prior to the date of the lab test. (Comp is rarely interested in post-mortems.) Wilson was a financial rep at Cedars-Sinai Medical center - a highly reputable institution - and had access to patient medical records. He was convicted on five felony counts and sentenced to 4+ years in prison.
As we read in the LA Times, a task force of private and public employers, including the Walt Disney Co., came up with an intriguing solution: require insurers to send notices to injured workers to check whether they actually received all the medical services billed. To eliminate the suspense, I will tell you now that the bill died in committee, at the request of the insurance industry. As much as the Insider detests fraud, we're with the carriers on this one.
The fraud problem is very real, but this particular solution is flawed. Too many assumptions are embedded in the approach. The bill assumes that:
- the carrier has a valid address for the individual
- the individual will read and understand the mailing, which is likely to contain technical information on treatments provided. (The claimant may be non-English speaking and/or illiterate.)
- the individual will take the time to fill out the form and respond, even though there is no direct incentive to do so
- the individual is not a willing participant in the fraud (having received a few bucks for the effort)
The fundamental flaw is that injured workers have no direct financial stake in fraud: they are held harmless in the comp system, with no co-pays, no deductibles and no premiums. The stake holders are the employer, who either pays for insurance or is self-insured, and the carrier/TPA, who under this bill is confronted with the significant cost of mailings (perhaps multiple mailings to individual claimants) and the arduous task of logging responses, which would be random: most would indicate no problems, while those pointing to fraud might well come from folks who simply did not understand the questions. This solution is equivalent to using a shotgun to eliminate a bunch of (very pesky and rather deadly) mosquitoes.
There may be a quick fix to make this approach somewhat more effective: send the confirmation of services to the employer. That way a vested stake-holder would be given useful information and would have an incentive to follow up on it. The employer could sit down with the individual and verify the treatments. Any problems could be relayed to the carrier. In this approach, the scale of the effort becomes more manageable, as the burden falls on hundreds of thousands of employers, as opposed to a few hundred carrier/TPAs.
A cost-benefit analysis would probably place this fraud buster where it currently resides, in the circular file. It's always tempting to legislate solutions to intractable problems, but alas, mandated solutions often become a new set of problems. Administrators, employers and carriers need a variety of tools to tackle fraud. This aborted bill is not exactly what the prudent doctor would have ordered.
Compensable weight loss surgery? A new wrinkle in obesity
Yesterday, my colleague blogged about employers that refuse to hire smokers and cited another employer who would like to extend that ban to obese applicants. Health-related matters and their associated costs are challenging for employers and we expect they will continue to be played out in the courts. In fact, yesterday, Roberto Ceniceros blogged about a surprise ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals about weight loss surgery related to a workers comp claim ... or at least the ruling was a surprise to us. In Boston's Gourmet Pizza v. Adam Childers, the court determined that the employer must pay for weight-reduction surgery for Childers as a precursor to treating the work-related back injury. The employer must provide temporary total disability benefits while the employee prepares for, and recovers from, the weight-loss surgery. The subsequent treatment path for the back injury is unclear, various treatments have been under consideration but the employer's weight was deemed a barrier to any success.
In 2007, the then 25-year-old Adam Childers sustained a back injury after being struck in the back by a freezer door while serving as a cook for his employer. At the time, he weighed 340 pounds and smoked about a pack and a half of cigarettes a day. Because of his weight, his physician advised against any nuerosurgery, but Childers' back pain persisted and other treatments did not provide relief. Over the course of this treatment, his weight increased to 380 pounds. His physician suggested lap band or gastric bypass surgery to get his weight down, both to relieve his symptoms and to improve his suitability for potential surgical treatments, such as spinal fusion.
Understandably, the employer balked at footing the bill for weight loss surgery. While the employer assumed responsibility in providing treatment for Childer's work-related injury, they contested the idea that they should have any responsibility for providing secondary medical treatment for a preexisting condition. However, in Indiana, a preexisting condition is not a bar to benefits, a matter that the courts have taken up in several prior cases. Ceniceros sums up it ups this way: But the court agreed with a Worker's Compensation Board finding that the worker's pre-existing medical and health condition combined with the accident to create a single injury for which he is entitled to work comp benefits.
We've posted many times about the high-cost of obesity and diabetes in the workplace, and how comorbidities can add to the cost of workers comp injuries. We've also blogged about employers' increasingly aggressive efforts to target so-called lifestyle issues that impact health. Decisions like this might heighten employers' resolve to control obesity - but in that regard, they may find themselves between a rock and a hard place.
Fire the Smokers! Tax the Fat?
Back in December of 2006 we blogged the story of Scott Rodrigues, a new hire of the Scotts lawn care company, who was fired after failing a drug test. No news here, perhaps, except that the drug in his system, nicotine is perfectly legal. Scott's is self-insured for health benefits, so they have a vested interest in making sure that employees follow basic wellness practices.
On his way to a pre-placement drug test, Mr. Rodrigues chewed on Nicorette gum. He was trying to kick the habit. Ironically, the Nicorette may have triggered the positive finding for nicotine. Rodrigues was hired provisionally and then abruptly terminated once the test results were released.
Rodrigues brought suit in federal court for violation of privacy and civil rights. Judge George O'Toole has ruled in favor of the company. The judge found no violation of privacy laws, as Rodrigues smoked while walking down the street and in a restaurant parking lot. His supervisor spotted a pack of cigarettes on the dashboard of his truck. Would the judge have ruled for Rodrigues if the employer had peeked through a window to see him smoking at home?
O'Toole also rejected the notion that the firing violated a 1974 federal law that protects employee rights to benefits. O'Toole ruled that Rodrigues was not yet a bona fide employee and was working on the condition that he pass the urinalysis.
Jim King, a spokesman for Scotts, said the smoking ban has never been used to fire an "existing" employee. It is used solely to screen out applicants. Since the ban went into effect in 2005, the percentage of smokers among the company's 7,000 employees has fallen to 7 percent from 28 percent.
[The Insider notes in passing that even as a "provisional" employee, Rodrigues was covered by workers comp from the moment he began working - indeed, while he was on his way to the drug testing lab.]
Whether employees can smoke or not depends upon the state they work in. A few states (e.g., Kentucky, Louisiana) explicitly protect smoker rights. Other states do not. It's interesting that Rodrigues pursued his case in federal court, probably because Massachusetts laws offered no protection to smokers.
Is Obesity Next?
We all know that smoking increases the risk of illness and the cost of medical coverage. The same goes for obesity. So the next front in the battle to control the business side of medical costs may well be the bathroom scale. The New York Times magazine profiles the Cleveland Clinic, which has been upheld as a model for medical cost control. Two years ago, they stopped hiring smokers. Delos M. Cosgrove, the heart surgeon who is the clinic’s chief executive, would like to expand the hiring ban to include applicants who are obese.
“Why is it unfair? Has anyone ever shown the law of conservation of matter doesn’t apply?” Cosgrove states that people’s weight is a reflection of how much they eat and how active they are. The country has grown fat because it’s consuming more calories and burning fewer. Our national weight problem brings huge costs, both medical and economic. Yet our anti-obesity efforts have none of the urgency of our antismoking efforts. “We should declare obesity a disease and say we’re going to help you get over it.”
Should the Cleveland Clinic - or any other employer- decline to hire obese people, it will be interesting to track the results. Where obesity can be traced back to genetic or chemical issues - where it qualifies as a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act- employers would be guilty of discrimination. If no such causes can be specified, employers may be on solid ground. (The unaddressed issue in these hiring practices, of course, is the loss of a vast pool of talented and often essential workers.)
A recent article in Health Affairs estimated the annual cost of obesity to be $147 billion and growing. That translates into $1,250 per household, mostly in taxes and insurance premiums.
The Fat Tax
Cosgrove is interested in an idea that some economists favor: charging higher health-insurance premiums to anyone with a certain body-mass index. Call it the Fat Tax. Another alternative might be taxing the calorie-rich foods that lead to obesity: just imagine paying a little surcharge for your large order of fries, your jumbo soda and your two-for-one pizza. That would be interesting, indeed! Just as smokers pay a tax-driven premium for their cigarettes, eaters would be taxed for their food addictions.
This is simply not going to happen. To be sure, fundamental wellness is the cornerstone of any plan to contain health care costs. But when the public good collides with the rights of freedom and privacy, individual rights will win out. Policy wonks may not like it, but citizens can eat whatever they damn well please. Lighting up after that supersized meal? Well, that's one area where the public good pretty much trumps the private right.
Cavalcade of Risk, Downunder style
This week's Cavalcade has gone global. Our New Zealand blog neighbor Russell Hutchinson of the Chatswood Consulting Blog has posted the Downunder version of Cavalcade of Risk. In addition to doing a roundup of posts from the usual suspects, he's amassed a selection of risk-related posts from New Zealand bloggers. These are a welcome addition to and change from the U.S. health policy issue, which has been the 800 lb. gorilla in the room of late. Grab a coffee and check things out!
Independent Contractors: The Bare Essentials
The King Arthur Lounge in Chelsea, MA does not exactly bring to mind the Knights of the Round Table. It's a tough place in a tough town - a strip joint with a motel attached (don't ask, don't tell). The strippers had to work under some pretty difficult conditions. They were hired as independent contractors. They paid a $35 fee for every shift. There were no wages, just customer tips. They provided their own (easily removable) costumes. When they moved to the darker regions of the bar and provided "private shows" (please don't ask, don't tell!), they had to turn over one third of their earnings to management.
Jonathan Saltzman tells the story in the Boston Globe: About 70 strippers, led by Lucienne Chaves, a 32 year old former stripper, filed suit, alleging in a class action that they were not independent contractors, but employees entitled to minimum wages and benefits. Their lawyer, Shannon Liss-Riordan, compared the strippers to indentured servants: "They weren't making any wage. Imagine a restaurant where a waiter has to pay to come to work and hand over a portion of the tips."
Robert Berluti, King Arthur's lawyer, countered that some strippers made hundreds of dollars a shift. He argued that the strippers were truly independent contractors, picking their own music, costumes, partners and routines.
Judge Frances McIntyre did not buy management's argument. "A court would need to be blind to human instinct [indeed!] to decide that live nude entertainment was the equivalent to the wallpaper of routinely-televised matches, games...and sports talk in such a place. The dancing is an integral part of King Arthur's business." She went on to say that the club hired and fired strippers, determined their hours and made hiring decisions solely on looks. In other words, the strippers were employees.
Mr. Berluti lamented the burden of overcoming Massachusett's strict standards for independent contractors. "This was a case where the judge was saddled with a MA law that makes it an outlier with respect to the rest of the country." Does Berluti really think the outcome would have been different if the law had been more ambiguous?
The strippers have been awarded thousands of dollars in damages. It will be interesting to see if they can collect. As noted above, King Arthur's Lounge is a tough place. Back in 1982, there was an argument between Alfred Mattuchio and an off-duty Everett MA police officer named John McLeod. The cop left the lounge and returned with several fellow officers, armed with nightsticks, baseball bats and tire irons. They attacked a dozen patrons and employees, one of whom was beaten to death. Four cops were indicted and three were convicted. The Insider wonders which, if any, of the King Arthur employees injured in the fracas collected workers comp.
The chivalry of the original Round Table still lives in some places, but not, alas, in the dank recesses of King Arthur's Lounge.
Can you hear me now? Work-related injuries for musicians
Last week, 61-year old rock musician Steven Tyler fell off the stage and suffered a broken shoulder, along with stitches in his head and back. He has had to cancel upcoming shows, though it's likely he'll be on a self-imposed return-to-work plan in the near future. Many musicians are like athletes in their devotion to their profession and their determination to return to work as soon as feasible. (Not to mention the economic impact of canceling shows, which although there is event cancellation insurance for that type of thing, still must take a bite from a musician's earnings.)
Falling off stages isn't all that unusual a work-related occurrence for musicians and other performers. Celebrity spills are a favorite fare on the Internet, with video clips drawing millions of viewers and little sympathy. Fashion model falls seem to be a particular favorite for the YouTubers, and frequently available given that a job-related hazard for models is teetering around on ridiculous footwear. But despite the vicarious pleasure that many viewers take in seeing pop culture icons coming down to earth, slips and falls are nothing to take lightly - they are one of the most common injuries in many professions, resulting in disabling injuries. They are also a leading source of fatalities in the construction industry.
Injuries beyond the falls
We went looking for more information about musician injuries and came upon Looking at Musicians' Health Through the Ages, an examination of performance-related musculoskeletal disorders (PRMDs) from the scholarly Medical Problems of Performing Artists. This is a publication that bills itself as "...the first clinical medical journal devoted to the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of medical and psychological disorders related to the performing arts. Original peer-reviewed research papers cover topics including neurologic disorders, musculoskeletal conditions, voice and hearing disorders, anxieties, stress, substance abuse, disorders of aging, and other health issues related to actors, dancers, singers, musicians, and other performers. Alas, the interesting articles entitled "Bagpiper's Hernia" and "The Psychological Profile of a Rock Band: Using Intellectual and Personality Measures with Musicians" are available only to subscribers.
For some other sites related to musician injuries, see Musician's Health, an educational website devoted to common musician's injuries and information on preventing those injuries. Instrumental injuries often include similar repetitive motion injuries to those that are commonly associated with computer use. Musicians' Injuries describes various types of performance-related injuries and offers advice on how to avoid them.
Hearing-related injuries are common for musicians
Hearing loss is another risk for musicians and conductors - and not just for rock musicians, as might be commonly assumed. Doug Owens, a USM music education professor and trumpet player who has experienced hearing loss himself, has been studying the issue of hearing loss and musicians. For his doctoral dissertation, he had ten high school band directors wear noise monitors for two days on the job.
"Owens found they were exposed to mean average noise levels of 85 to 93 decibels, similar to a vacuum cleaner or a leaf blower. Noise exposures peaked at 101 to 115 decibels, similar to a jackhammer or a crowd at a basketball game.
Comparing eight-hour exposure rates, Owen found noise levels for all of the band directors were more than three times higher than recommended by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health."
In learning more about this topic, we also discovered H.E.A.R., a site with an acronym that stands for Hearing Education and Awareness for Rockers. The site describes itself as "a non-profit grassroots hearing health organization of hearing professionals, audiologists, ear doctors, educators, music industry professionals, and musicians dedicated to the prevention of hearing loss and tinnitus for musicians, music students, recording engineers, music industry professionals and music fans, especially young people." The site offers the latest in hearing-related research, news and advice, along with a quick and easy test to assess whether concerts are harming your hearing.
The End of Civil Discourse?
We live, alas, in interesting times. As the health care debate spirals downward, the fault lines in our culture become more and more evident. On one side, anti-reformers stack town meetings to prevent any meaningful dialogue from taking place. These folks are even trying to intimidate unions. What am I missing here? Who is supposed to intimidate whom? On both sides of this momentous debate, pockets are being stuffed with special interest money. This makes the ultimate outcome - whether status quo or some degree of reform - highly suspect. The notion of genuine debate and civil discourse have disappeared altogether.
Which leads us back for a moment to the lingering conflict between UPS and FedEx. Back in December, we blogged FedEx's unusual charter:
FedEx began 35 years ago as an airline. As such, it fell under the Railway Labor Act of 1926, which made unionization of public and commercial transport companies extremely difficult. By contrast, UPS began as a trucking company and was subject to the National Labor Relations Act from day one. UPS is unionized: they pay workers more than FedEx, they provide better benefits.
It would be to UPS's advantage to remove their fierce competitor from the Railway Labor Act and force them to operate under the NLRA. That requires an act of congress, so it's no surprise that UPS has been aggressively lobbying congress for this change. They say they want to level the playing field.
Level playing fields are fine. The devil is in the details: how do you accomplish your goal? Apparently, by playing unfairly. UPS has been accused of forcing union members to write to their congressmen, urging passage of legislation to eliminate the FedEx exemption. The letters bombarding congress appear to express the views of individual UPS drivers. In fact, many are based upon prescribed forms. We read in the Washington Post:
Officials with UPS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which represents 240,000 UPS drivers, acknowledge that the company has paid for workers' time to pen many of the letters and has supplied the envelopes, paper and stamps needed to mail thousands of them to Congress. UPS spokesman Malcolm Berkley said the effort was "totally voluntary, and any allegations to the contrary are ridiculous."
But Internet sites dedicated to UPS-related discussions feature dozens of accounts from anonymous employees who in recent weeks have said they were forced to write the letters or felt they would be punished for not doing so. Such tactics could run afoul of both labor laws and lobbying disclosure requirements, according to legal experts.
So it appears that UPS may be violating labor laws in order to force FedEx to operate under labor laws. Were you expecting anything different?
In one of Norman Rockwell's many iconic images, a humbly dressed man stands up in a town meeting to express his opinion. The painting is entitled "Freedom of Speech." We could certainly argue the degree to which such freedoms ever existed. But it's all too clear that Rockwell's image bears no relation to what is occurring today. If he were to depict our present situation, we would see an enraged citizen shouting down his local congressman. This individual would waive an inflammatory poster complete with Nazi symbols. In his pocket, we might glimpse the bus ticket that brought him into town. In the corner we might see an innocent mother, huddling to protect her child from the pending violence.
We are currently facing many complex issues, ranging from FedEx's status as an employer to the health care options for every American. There are pros and cons to every path. No one really knows how to get from point A to point B. Indeed, we may not even agree on what point B is. But when civil discourse deteriorates into the ravings of the mob, we all lose. If winning is defined by who shouts the loudest, who cheats the most effectively, who succeeds in intimidating the oppostion, there will be no victory for anyone.
Health Wonk Review's Recess Edition and news from the blogosphere
Congress may be on vacation but the dedicated health policy bloggers are certainly on the case so you should face no shortage of wonkery. Jaan Sidorov has posted the August Recess Edition of Health Wonk Review at Disease Management Care Blog - well worth your perusal.
And as long as we're on the topic of health care, kudos to the folks at Kaiser Family Foundation who have put together an interactive tool that allows for side-by-side comparisons of two or more healthcare reform proposals across a number of key characteristics and plan components. It will be regularly updated to reflect changes in the proposals and to incorporate major new proposals as they are announced.
Other news from the blogosphere and beyond
OSHA - President Obama has nominated David Michaels as Assistant Secretary for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of Labor. David Michaels, PhD, MPH, is an epidemiologist and is currently Research Professor at the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services. In addition to his biography in the release, read more about him in his biography at George Washington University. The folks at OSHA Underground have more and this nominee is also welcome news to The Pump Handle gang as evidenced by the comments in the announcement post.
In more OSHA news, Heidi at The Facility Blog posts about OSHA's new national emphasis program (NEP) on recordkeeping. The NEP was prompted after congressional hearings last year which raised the issue of under-reporting. The program will institute a policy that prompts recordkeeping inspections at employers’ establishments with low incidence rates in historically high rate industries and will also incorporate inspections of a sample of construction firms. See Heidi's post for more details on the program.
Pharma - Freshly back from his vacation in the Tanzanian bush, Joe Paduda offers his take on the workers comp implications of the Administration's drug deal.
Lean claims handling - Roberto Ceniceros has made lots of good posts over at Comp Time this week. Read about how the manufacturing trend to streamlined processing is surfacing in insurance as "lean" claims handling.
Firefighters - August 17 to 21 is National Firefighter Health Week. Despite the dangers that they face on the job every day, the real threat to their health is heart disease - nearly half of all firefighter deaths are caused by heart attacks. The National Volunteer Fire Council sponsors a site with resources and programs designed to encourage first responders to learn their risk factors, commit to making healthy lifestyle changes, and keep the momentum going all year.
NY construction training scam - a new law in New York City requires 10 hours of training for all workers hired at high-rise buildings begun after July 1. The New York Daily news reports that fake 30-hour construction training cards are surfacing. Apparently, three companies in New York and one in Nevada have been busted for issuing these bogus cards and a few dozen other companies are under investigation.
Lighter side - Consumer Insurance Blog posts an amusing video of clever ads from Bangkok Insurance which do a good job illustrating the concept of probability.
Distractions Behind the Wheel, Revisited
The other Nicholas Sparks is in a bit of trouble: not the well-known writer, but an obscure 25 year old tow truck driver from upstate New York. The lesser known Sparks has earned himself a place in the Business Hall of Shame when he raised multi-tasking to new heights (or better, depths). He was talking on one cell phone, texting on another(!), when, surprise of surprises, he lost control of his vehicle, smashed into another car, careened across a front lawn and plunged his flatbed tow truck into a swimming pool. The 68 year-old woman driving the other car suffered head injuries but is in good condition; her 8 year old niece suffered minor injuries.
Sparks has been charged with reckless driving, talking on a cell phone and following too closely. He was driving a truck for Adams Towing Company. While I was unable to find an area company listed under this name, I do hope they carry robust liability coverage. The company is clearly guilty of negligence and will pay dearly for their multi-multi-tasking employee.
Driven to Distraction
The New York Times has singled out the use of cell phones while driving as a major danger. They have a begun a series focusing on this new road hazard entitled "Driving to Distraction." In their most recent article, they describe the ubiquitous talking on cells performed by taxi drivers. (My family caught a cab during a downpour in Brooklyn last week; I sat in the front seat and listened to one side of a conversation in an Arabic tongue that was underway when we entered the cab and continued after we had paid and exited.)
While New York City has one of the most stringent laws in the country prohibiting taxi drivers from using cell phones while driving, it is rarely enforced. Fewer than 800 summonses were issued to cab drivers in 2007. If the law were enforced, the annual summonses would run in the hundreds of thousands.
It all comes down to this: anyone who drives can no longer plead ignorance to the dangers of talking/texting and driving. A new and potentially huge liability has emerged for the employers of people who drive in the course of employment. The employers are going to be held accountable for the mistakes of their employees. Property will be damaged and people will be hurt, even killed. In order to avoid liability, management will have to demonstrate that effective cell phone policies have been both promulgated and enforced.
Which leads to one final question: with liability ultimately falling to the insurance companies, what steps have they taken to ensure that policy holders have mitigated this ever-increasing risk? How will their underwriters identify the companies most likely to produce the next Nicholas Sparks - the driver, that is, not the writer.
There is an ongoing debate concerning the compensability of injuries that occur during company sponsored recreation. As Dr. Suess might say, "These things are fun and fun is good," except when your employer makes you do it. There is a fine line between employees participating because they want to, as opposed to feeling that they have to.
Clark Kauffman has a nice summary of the compensability issues in the Des Moines Register. He sites the case of Robert Powell, an employee of the Cedar Rapids Gazette, who injured his back bowling at a "Family Fun Fest" sponsored by his employer. His injury was compensable - to the tune of $100,000 - because the employer urged participation: "Don't make us cancel this event from lack of interest/attendance."
Iowa has some interesting case law regarding compensability:
Hunting: way back in 1933 Claire Fintzel was trying to close a deal while pheasant hunting with a business associate. He was shot in the leg. He received $15 a week for 100 weeks (a paltry sum, to be sure, but this was back in the depression).
Boating: In 1941 Roy Linderman, a salesman for Cowie Furs, won a company-sponsored contest for highest sales. His prize? A fishing trip, during which, alas, he drowned. His death was deemed compensable.
Basketball: In 1982 Professor Charles Campolo of Briar Cliff College was partcipating in a faculty-student basketball game. At age 40, Campolo had a known heart condition. He died in the game's final seconds. Because the school derived a benefit from his participation, the death was compensable.
State by State
Kauffman takes a brief look of the compensability issue from state to state. It usually boils down to this: is the event truly voluntary? Does the employer derive a direct business benefit from the activity? To some degree the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that there is no pressure on employees to participate - that participation is not the only true measure of "team spirit."
The state of Tennessee recently revised their comp statute, to provide clarification on the compensability issue. The statute is brief but comprehensive:
Public Chapter 407 (SB1909/HB1500) excludes from workers' compensation injuries that occur during recreational activities that are not required by the employer, and do not directly benefit the employer. Workers’ compensation injuries that are covered under workers’ compensation include those that occur where participation: 1) was expressly or impliedly (sic) required by the employer; or 2) produced a direct benefit to the employer beyond improvement in employee health and morale; or 3) was during work hours and was part of the employee’s work duties; or 4) occurred due to unsafe conditions the employer had knowledge of and failed to curtail or cure the unsafe condition.
This statutory language summarizes the issues without tying the hands of judges unnecessarily. It's a good model for legislators contemplating changes. Beyond that, it's good policy guidance for employers who want to encourage team building and fun, without creating inadvertant comp exposures.