Newsletter

Got a bad back, Jack? Can’t stand the hurt, Burt? You might want to hold off on that surgery. Instead, take it back to the old school with a back brace. Gone are the back braces of yore that restricted movement and caused abdominal muscles to atro- phy. Today’s braces are lightweight, flexible and designed to allow movement while relieving the pres- sure on spinal disks that often are the source of lower-back pain. Growing disillusionment with surgery and other treatments for back pain have led to a resurgence of interest in the back brace. Although surgery works well for some patients with severe cases, for the general sufferer, less-invasive options such as a back brace could be the answer. Back braces aren’t a magic bullet, by any means. They can, however, provide relief from crippling back pain, allowing sufferers to return to work and family duties. Patients with back braces also can begin their physical therapy regimen and other muscle-strengthening exercises. In many cases, simple abdominal exercises and stretches also can alleviate back pain. Doctors praise the back brace for its ability to dis- rupt the psychological cycle of back pain, which often leads to depres- sion and inactivity that, in turn, inflame the back problem. The back brace acts as both a physical and psychological “leg up,” a building block that doctors hope will relieve patients‘ pain and help them devel- op a solid exercise routine. This new breed of back braces is available by prescription only. Because long-term use can lead to a weakening of the abdominal muscles, patients must do daily abdominal exercises. If you or someone you know suffers from chronic back pain, keep the back brace in mind. It just might do the trick. A lthough “exclusive immunity” is often overlooked, it represents the key tradeoff of the workers’ com- pensation system for employers. In exchange for providing benefits to an employee for on-the-job injuries (even when the employee might have been primarily at fault for their own injuries), the employer enjoys immunity from suits by employees (even when the employer might have been primarily at fault). The idea was to create a true no-fault system of benefits, with both employees and employers sacrificing and benefiting from the deal. How strong is this immunity tradeoff for benefits? Over the years, attorneys have failed in numerous attempts to find a way around or through the pro- tective shield erected by the workers’ comp laws. Yet, when state courts con- sistently uphold the doctrine, you know that’s a strong barrier. Although exclusive immunity is a fundamental part of the comp system, states vary on allowable exceptions. Gross negligence on the part of the employer resulting in an employee’s death is one such exception. Exclusive Immunity Is Key WC Benefit Back Braces Help Ease the Pain

I f your employees aren’t getting enough exercise, they might be costing you money! Each year, employers lose $61.2 billion in productivity due to such minor health problems as headaches, backaches and other muscle and joint pains, according to the Journal of the American Medical Association. A survey of 28,000 adult workers found that 13% had lost productivity due to pain at work over a two-week period. The most common causes of pain were headaches, back pain, arthritis pain and other musculoskeletal discomfort. The amount of time lost? No less than 4.6 hours per week. As an employ- er, you should be concerned about this. Some amount of pain is unavoidable. If an employee helps his pregnant sister carry a wicker armoire up to the attic, he might throw something out in his back. That’s par for the course. A large number of studies have shown that exercise and stretch- ing are the keys to beating minor aches and pains. If you’d like to cut down on the 4.6 hours a week of lost time, think about giving your employees an extra break or two during the day. Advise them to stretch periodically and move around. Just taking a quick spin around the office can work those muscles and help prevent injury and soreness. Many years ago, most businesses operated locally. A marketing area often was defined by how far a person could drive, do the work, and still be home by supper. This also meant that business regulations and workers’ compensation rules were based on a single locality. Things aren’t so simple anymore. It’s no longer unusual for a business to have its home office in one state, most of its job locations in several others, as well as employees who commute from still other locations. If you look at your workers’ compensation policy, there seems to be little problem: as long as the state where you have job sites is proper- ly listed in the policy declarations, you have the full coverage required by that state’s workers’ comp law. If you have a job location in a given state, any restrictions in coverage availability come from state laws and insurer underwriting requirements, not the coverage form. Yet workers’ compensation laws have often failed to keep pace with the expansion in business locations. If you‘re operating in multiple states, ignorance of various state laws and the resulting insurer rules can create gaps in your coverage, leading to multiple headaches (or lawsuits). Our workers’ compensation professionals know what states require of employers operating in their jurisdictions, and how the nec- essary coverages can best be obtained. Keep us informed of your multi-state operations, both current and planned, and let us take care of those multiple headaches. If anyone you employ is required to drive or ride in a motor vehicle, you should be aware of the risks involved. Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of work-related death from injury. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) states that vehicle crashes made up 23% of all on-the-job deaths during the year 2000. The risk is highest for employees whose daily job activities require driv- ing or riding in an automobile. The easiest example is the truck driver. The on-the-job death rate for your average big-rig hauler is at least seven times the rate of any other occupation. Unlike accidents among the general population, which generally occur later in the day and into the evening, workplace crash fatalities peak in the middle of the day. As with accidents among the general public, however, most work-related fatalities are single-vehicle accidents. What can you do to help ensure your drivers’ safety? Enforce the mandatory use of seatbelts. This is by far the most important (and easiest) way to reduce fatalities and serious injuries. NIOSH also urges employers to plan realistic delivery schedules that allow employees to make deliver- ies while obeying speed limits and staying within federally mandated limits on driving hours. Businesses Think Global, States Still Act Local Aches, Pains Reduce Productivity Ensure Your Drivers’ Safety

COPYRIGHT ©2004. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is under- stood that the publishers are not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert advice is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Employees in Texas and California report the least satisfactory results for medical treatment in the nation, according to a study by the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute. Workers in Texas, California, Pennsylvania and Massachusetts report comparable levels of pre-injury health and return to function after treatment for work-related injuries. Overall, injured workers have similar levels of return to health after work- ers’ compensation treatment. Although most workers reported that they were able to obtain access to medical practitioners, as many as 20% of workers reported problems in obtaining that access. The majority of workers stated that, all in all, they were pleased with their medical care. Differences by state were large, how- ever: 68% of Californian workers were satisfied with their medical care; Pennsylvania and Texas each clocked in at 78% satisfaction; and Mass- achusetts had the most satisfied workers — 84% stated that they were pleased with their medical service. Much like worker satisfaction lev- els, the average cost per claim fluctu- ates from state to state. Massachusetts had the low average of $4,937, while Texas had almost triple that amount. Massachusetts, once again, had the lowest incurred medical costs at $6,325. California tipped the scales at an astounding $16,866! Massachusetts also was home to the lowest number of visits involved in treatment, 17. Once again, Texas and California were at the top, with 30 apiece. When their fee schedules were compared with that of the Medicare fee schedule for 2001, Massachusetts and Texas were again the outliers. While Massachusetts workers’ com- pensation fees were 13% below Medicare fees, Texas’ workers’ comp fees were 38% higher. Fewer workers in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts had serious second absences. When they did, more workers in these states returned to work and did so sooner than in the other states in the study. Costs per claim in Texas have increased at a double-digit rate for the third year in a row. The major drivers behind this increase in overall costs per claim were a growth in average medical payments, indemnity pay- ments, and benefit-delivery expenses per claim. California’s costs were driven by medical costs per claim 20% to 52% higher than the median of the 12 states surveyed, longer periods of temporary disability for injured workers, and a higher percentage of claims with more than seven days of lost time. W ith so many employers to track and so much paperwork to review, some uninsured employ- ers can slip through the cracks in the workers’ compensation system. Unfortunately, by reducing the pool of funds available to cover valid employee injuries, such employers increase the cost of the system for all others. State comp regulators are using technology to develop more sophis- ticated ways of uncovering unin- sured firms. The result is significant amounts of premiums being collect- ed to help bear the benefit burden. In New York, the State Workers’ Compensation Board announced that its efforts during 2001 led to a record $9.7 million in penalties against employers who failed to protect employees with the proper comp coverages. These penalties are deposited into a fund that pays benefits for workers injured while working for uninsured employers. By law, any deficit in the fund is made up by an assessment against insured employers. So every dollar in penalties means one less dollar of unfair burden on compa- nies like yours. The New York board achieved this outcome by sharing information with other organizations, such as the state Department of Labor, the State Insurance Fund and private insurance carriers. The collected data was then analyzed to uncover busi- nesses that have violated the law, intentionally or unintentionally. Judgments were filed against those employers who have the choice of paying up or facing liens against their business assets. Technology is one way of bringing more equity to the system, while preserving the rights of employer access to fair coverage and injured employee access to fair benefits. For businesses like yours, which are committed to providing necessary protection at a reasonable cost, that’s very good news indeed. Technology: Sealing Leaks in the System Does Where You Live Really Equal How You Feel?

Thank you for your referrals. If you’re pleased with us, spread the word! We’ll be happy to give the same great service to all of your friends and business associates. H ow about this for some great news? Since 1992, the number of lost-time injuries and illnesses in private industry has been on the decline! Now that’s a cause for celebration. This analysis comes from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), which began keeping track of these stats in the early 1990s. Let’s hope this downward trend continues! Injury and Illness Stats