Workers' Comp is Identical Everywhere, Except Where it is Completely Different

I had an interesting conversation this week with the chairman of a state workers' compensation commission while at the IAIABC Spring Forum in Myrtle Beach, SC. He was talking about how he came into the position, and some of the things he did to prepare for this challenging role. He made, what I believe to be, a very enlightening statement about that process. He told me he took the time to read all of the other states comp legislation, and then shook his head and said, essentially, "It didn't take long to figure out that while workers' comp is exactly the same everywhere, it is completely different in every state". 

It was a great observation. The concept of comp is virtually identical in every state, yet the process with which it is deployed is unique to every jurisdiction. This became extremely evident during a Leadership Seminar Wednesday morning talking about the challenges of upgrading state agency technology systems and infrastructure. 

Prior to panelists from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Saskatchewan, and Michigan covering extensive challenges and accomplishments for the audience of regulators, the microphone was passed around the room so that everyone had a chance to discuss their concerns and issues on the topic. Everyone had exactly the same concerns, yet ironically no one had the same problem. Monday I wrote about the differences in the workers' comp industry's "data language". It was pretty evident from this exercise that the phenomenon is merely an extension of a greater diversity of procedure that all of these states have with one another.

The major problems that the states face regarding technology are rooted in both the complexity of managing comp data and a limited pool of customers for which a company can create a solution. This leaves Workers' Compensation Divisions around the nation looking for off the shelf solutions that will accommodate a certain percentage of their needs, or building a home grown solution for their stakeholders and employees.

And since no two jurisdictions are alike, even one states home built or heavily customized system is virtually useless for others. Virtually everything is tied to the fact that workers' comp, similar in concept, is nonetheless a completely different animal when the rubber hits the road.

Peter Federko, CEO of the Saskatchewan Workers' Compensation Board, gave a somewhat self-scathing review of the trials and tribulations his agency experienced when migrating to a new technology platform several years ago. The project, as is seemingly typical in these cases, ran well over both schedule and budget. Federko discussed the lessons learned from this, and made distinct recommendations for the group. Among them was the suggestion that agencies be prepared and willing to modify their operations to conform to their new platform, instead of wasting time and resources making the new platform fit their existing mold. It was a suggestion I think that could be applied at a far greater level. 

Technology isn't the only thing that needs to be continually upgraded to meet changing demands. Sometimes processes in these agencies should be subject to the same philosophy. Certain procedures, established long ago by God knows who, no longer meet the workflow demands of today. It makes no sense to try to retrofit modern technology to perform outdated procedures. Changing the culture, breaking the "way we've always done it" is a challenging and at times frightening task. Yet doing so would help agencies grow and adapt, and more easily adopt to changes in their technology systems.

That in itself won't help the initially discussed issue, where 50 states have 50 different methods to achieve a relatively common goal. Still, the conversation at the IAIABC was a great one to have. The more states discuss their individual issues and challenges, the more they will identify their common ground. From that common ground can grow similarities that will benefit states as they work to improve their services.  

While workers' comp will continue to be a notion in agreement across the land yet different at every level of implementation, improved sharing of ideas and technology experience will help break down those all too common barriers. Workers' comp is exactly the same everywhere while completely different in every state. That does not mean the process gap can't be closed through better understanding of procedure both in the state next door and beyond. 

Original Source

Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 

Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy

Are disabled workers a significant proportion of the working-age population?

Our economy needs skilled and able workers to deliver the goods and services we need locally and provide internationally.  When a worker becomes disabled through work injury or other cause, there is one less member of the working age population capable of and able to participate in the labour force. 

At any given time, there are workers off work because of a work-related injury, illness or occupational disease; other workers are out of the labor force due to non-work related causes.  Whether the cause is work-related or not, in most cases, disabling conditions resolve to the point where a worker is again able to return to work.  The remaining individual must live with an impairment that may be a significant barrier to continuing in the labor force.  This is not just an issue of an individual and his or her family having to bear physical and mental suffering, society losses the skills, knowledge and abilities of a proven human resource—something that can impact local communities and national economy.

For worker covered by workers’ compensation, work-related financial impacts can be offset in part by temporary and permanent income compensation.  For all workers, there may be access to other social insurance programs such as US Social Security – Disability benefits and Canada Pension Plan – Disability benefits.

In the US, Social Security Disability (SS-D) benefits are available to workers who become disabled.  Most people who receive disability benefits are workers.  Of the 10,088,739 recipients of SS-D in December 2012, about 87.5% of them were workers.  Nearly $10 billion a month gets paid out to workers who must now depend on SS-D. 

We normally think of the labor force as being drawn from the resident population aged 18 to 64.  Restricting SS-D recipients to that same age range means there are 9.3 million Americans or 4.7% of the population aged 18 to 64 were on SS-D in 2012.  The vast majority of these SS-D beneficiaries were workers who are unable to work and contribute to building a vibrant economy. 

That 4.7% is an average for the whole country.  The distribution of SS-D recipients varies by state. The following table is derived from the Annual Statistical Report on the Social Security Disability Insurance Program, 2012 [table 8]:

Number aged 18–64 as a percentage of the resident population aged 18–64,
by declining percentage by state, December 2012

	Resident population a	Beneficiaries
		Number	Percentage of resident population
West Virginia	1,159,423	104,406	9.0
Alabama	2,998,237	250,301	8.3
Arkansas	1,795,660	149,632	8.3
Kentucky	2,747,524	225,529	8.2
Mississippi	1,835,518	144,398	7.9
Maine	836,898	63,333	7.6
Tennessee	4,043,720	268,443	6.6
South Carolina	2,948,174	189,251	6.4
Missouri	3,735,332	235,374	6.3
Michigan	6,173,776	380,524	6.2
Louisiana	2,888,885	173,283	6.0
Vermont	403,616	24,198	6.0
New Hampshire	852,075	49,925	5.9
Rhode Island	675,189	39,715	5.9
Oklahoma	2,343,210	135,431	5.8
North Carolina	6,117,676	349,592	5.7
Indiana	4,056,709	221,264	5.5
Pennsylvania	7,981,289	438,294	5.5
Ohio	7,175,429	378,923	5.3
New Mexico	1,276,263	66,763	5.2
Delaware	571,568	28,909	5.1
Massachusetts	4,286,235	217,351	5.1
Florida	11,805,373	565,421	4.8
Montana	624,872	29,767	4.8
Wisconsin	3,584,341	173,441	4.8
United States	197,040,596	9,306,256	4.7
Georgia	6,290,121	295,892	4.7
Idaho	956,497	45,118	4.7
Kansas	1,767,332	80,876	4.6
Oregon	2,457,110	112,691	4.6
Iowa	1,880,928	84,657	4.5
New York	12,549,535	565,836	4.5
Virginia	5,266,625	227,060	4.3
Washington	4,403,628	185,482	4.2
Arizona	3,960,828	162,630	4.1
South Dakota	507,002	20,764	4.1
Illinois	8,116,753	321,189	4.0
Minnesota	3,373,224	135,566	4.0
Nebraska	1,134,766	45,737	4.0
Connecticut	2,264,077	89,371	3.9
New Jersey	5,587,651	215,599	3.9
Texas	16,234,269	610,238	3.8
Wyoming	365,414	13,556	3.7
Maryland	3,777,744	135,798	3.6
Nevada	1,734,434	62,961	3.6
North Dakota	444,354	15,680	3.5
District of Columbia	450,954	15,374	3.4
Colorado	3,342,983	108,554	3.2
California	24,201,126	762,133	3.1
Utah	1,695,896	50,916	3.0
Alaska	481,852	13,848	2.9
Hawaii	878,501	25,262	2.9

[Footnote to original table]  SOURCES: Social Security Administration, Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data; Census Bureau, 2012 resident population.

NOTE: Data exclude U.S. territories and other areas

Population estimates for the United States as of July 1, 2012, as reported by the Census Bureau.

CONTACT: (410) 965-0090 or statistics@ssa.gov

The profile of the average worker on SS-D in 2012 was a male (53%) average age was 53 receiving an average monthly benefit of $1,134.86. 

Not everyone on SS-D is there permanently, although many are.  You may have the image of a worker on SS-D as having catastrophic and permanent physical impairments.  Some recipients have disabilities that could be described that way but a third of them have a primary disability related to mental disorders.  Another 30% have a primary diagnosis related to “muskulo-skeletal and connective tissue”.   Some are expected to get better or for their medical disability to improve and allow a return to work; about 70,000 workers terminated their SS-D benefits for these reasons in 2012 [table 50 in the 2012 Annual Statistical Report]

Preventing injury that leads to permanent disability remains the number one priority but more needs to be done to prevent workers who develop or incur impairments from becoming permanently disabled.  Disability is largely a societal issue; the lack of accommodation, failure to foster resiliency and the inability (or resolve) to overcome systemic barriers are perhaps greater contributors to the mounting human and economic costs. 

I don’t know all the reasons for the wide disparity in SS-D recipient rates across states. Why, for example, does Virginia have an SS-D worker recipient rate that is less than half that of West Virginia?  No doubt some of the variation can be accounted for by the demographics of the state population.  Perhaps some states are more proactive in prevention and accommodation thus obviating the need for income support for SS-D.  If you have the answer, share it!  Post a comment or send me an email.

Original Source

Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 

Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy

Ime Paragraph

Ime Paragraph (When Not Pursuing):

As we discussed, the Colorado Supreme Court has found that the DIME procedure is 

“the only way for an injured worker to challenge the treating physician’s findings -- 

including MMI, the availability of post-MMI treatment, degree of non-scheduled 

impairments, and whether the impairment was caused by an on-the-job injury….

”Whiteside v. Smith, 67 P.3d 1240, 1246 (Colo. 2003). Had you decided to pursue an IME, 

prior to your IME, the doctor will review all of your medical records.  The doctor will then 

perform a physical examination of you.  After performing that examination, the doctor will 

only address the issues above and, specifically: 

(1) whether you were properly released at maximum medical improvement and, (2) whether 

the rating you were assigned is correct.  These are the only two issues that State appointed 


doctor can address.


Original Source: From the archives of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C.

Contact the Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. today if you have a workers' compensation or a Social Security disability case.

http://www.otoole-sbarbaro.com

Phone: 303-595-4777

We are located in the Denver Metro area.

226 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204

Disclaimer 

Any content of this blog is intended for informational purposes only.It is not intended to solicit business, provide legal advice from The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. and does not serve as a medium for an attorney-client relationship. Therefore, The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C. is not responsible for the information on this blog which may not apply to every reader. Always seek professional counsel if you have any legal matters. Contents within the blog of The Law Office of O'Toole & Sbarbaro, P.C., logos and other related media are protected by the copyright laws of the United States and other jurisdictions.

Privacy Policy