Tag Archives: centers for disease control

Radical Approach on Healthcare Crisis

I love health policy, healthcare technology and using “corkscrew” thinking to find solutions for big problems. Perhaps no problem looms larger today than our current healthcare crisis and its financial implications for our future.  

The U.S. healthcare system needs more than a healthy shot in the arm—it needs a cure. Premiums continue their upward surge. More Americans are going into debt because of healthcare. Fewer workers are funding a growing Medicare base. There is a heavy shift of enrollees to Medicaid coverage, drug prices keep climbing and people are living longer.

In the last decade, top healthcare analysts, industry leaders, medical school experts, bloggers, public policy wonks, foundations, think tanks and politicians have had plenty to say, but the American consumer continues to be hit hard.

Current (and evolving) solutions we have to fix healthcare include: the Triple Aim, affordable care organizations (ACOs), private- and public-sponsored medical research, disease fundraising, population health management, electronic health records (EHRs), high-tech abuse/fraud solutions, new drugs, end-of-life talks, Obamacare and the future of pay-per-value.

See Also: Why Employers Should Comply With Obamacare Mandate

Everything about our healthcare crisis screams for utilization that is more selective, has a greater efficiency and can lower costs. But the red light on healthcare’s dashboard says there is a bigger issue. It’s something that, when fixed, will provide a greater benefit for generations to come.

That red light alerts us to the fact that, out of the $3 trillion spent per year on healthcare, 86% is related to chronic disease—many of which can be prevented, delayed in their onset or better managed earlier. Per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the costs and figures are simply staggering. If the world’s largest company was going under, its underlying financials couldn’t look any more crippled.

Everyone has been looking at our national healthcare crisis in the wrong way. The solution is not to provide everyone with health coverage but to take strong, legal steps to teach, coerce and even mandate that the majority of American children and adults become healthy, through individual accountability.

“Mandate” hits a nerve, especially to those like myself who value the strength of our individual freedoms. But, historically, a large number of American citizens have consistently shown they do not value their health. When value is lost, the effect is often poor choices and subsequent long-term management. This leads to the development of sustained drivers, culminating in the onset of chronic disease(s), the major cost driver of our healthcare crisis.

For starters, nearly 50% of all American adults (117 million) have a chronic disease, and 25% have at least two. More than a third of our country (35%) is obese. Nearly half of U.S. adults (47%) at least have uncontrolled high blood pressure or uncontrolled high LDL cholesterol or are smokers.

“Steve, that is the individual’s choice, and that person has to live with the results,” you say. Sure, personal responsibility is key. However, for the healthcare markets, one person’s chronic disease affects everyone in the system.

Subsidies and public coverage, such as Medicare and Medicaid, run off taxpayer money. Private insurance prices group and individual premiums from risk pools. Therefore, there is no misunderstanding—today’s unhealthy people cost healthy people money both now and in future generations.

Almost everyone agrees that eating a carrot is better than eating a donut, that running two miles a day beats chain-smoking a pack of cigarettes. If that’s the case, why aren’t people making the needed changes?

Simple : Those people do not value their health. Therefore, they do not take actions to improve or maintain it.

Having individuals value their health on a mass scale is the answer to lowering chronic disease rates. Lower disease rates lower cost for care, resulting in more affordable healthcare for everyone.

ACOs, EHRs, increasing pay-per-value reimbursement helps lower costs and creates efficiency but does very little to drive individuals to value their health.

When someone makes a decision on just about anything, there are only two reasons: to gain pleasure or to avoid stress or pain. You might eat a chocolate bar, craving the sweet taste. Or you might quit smoking, after the first heart attack, where the strong possibility of death has set in.

Here’s the thing. For most people 25 and under, if they already “feel good” physically, neither trigger is in play. By the time they “feel bad,” many chronic diseases may already have had an irreversible foothold for years or decades. Early detection for everyone is tremendously important and desperately needed.

Many young Americans don’t go to the doctor, because they “feel good.” The initial motivator to get people to value their health is not public education, throwing large data points at them, getting them on high-deductible healthcare plans or using fear marketing. Rather, we must create an instance where people will get massive amounts of pain from not going to get a checkup or screening. The law must require every insured and uninsured American to have routine physicals and screenings.

Basic Outline of Program:

  • There must be repetitive and selective screenings, depending on gender and age.
  • Those who do not get screened receive a financial penalty, paid directly by individuals from their taxes or through their paycheck, or deducted from their social program or subsidy benefits.
  • Subsidies would cover the patient portion for screening, whether insured or not.
  • Results would be tracked, individuals would be counseled and any further results on subsequent actions would be tracked.

Yes, this plan will drive up costs on the front end. Look, it took us a lot of time to get to this healthcare crisis, and it will take time to undo it. If we believe we can find a short-term solution to reverse this, we are kidding ourselves.

See Also: Endangered Individual Health Market

The most important result is gaining proper management for the long term, allowing affordability for future generations

There will be those who claim individual rights will be lost when such coercion takes place (just think about how the Affordable Care Act was positioned as a tax). In the end, if we didn’t have such nasty, costly surprises on the middle and back-end portions of our lives, we wouldn’t have to make these changes.

Perhaps if doctors, insurers, drug companies, hospitals and other medical services reduced their revenues, affordability would be in hand. But here’s a reality check: The U.S. healthcare sector is growing faster than any other sector in the country. Companies, employees and shareholders are not going to reduce their financial interests and current way of life for the average American consumer to afford care.

We need something new. We do not need something to work against businesses but something to work for people.  People can, then, with better personal health data, be motivated to gain more than ever in their current and future health.

Americans have always been strong enough to call upon resolve and forward thinking. Now, we live in the time of “what’s in it for me?” Sometimes, mandates are necessary to get people to see the importance of helping their fellow man, instead of themselves.

People are dying unnecessarily. This will continue if we don’t stand for more than ourselves. Let’s come together to give more people the chance to make better decisions and to live healthier lives.

baseline

Baseline Testing Provides a Win

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the incidence of musculoskeletal injuries (MSD) cases for heavy and tractor-trailer truck drivers increased to 355.4 cases per 10,000 full-time workers in 2014, up from 322.8 in 2013. This is more than three times greater than the rate for all private sector workers.

Companies are faced with increasing exposure from MSD claims, not only from state regulations but from compliance with federal mandates that increase potential exposure for these types of injuries. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) defines MSD as injuries or disorders of the muscles, nerves, tendons, joints and cartilage as well as disorders of the nerves, tendons, muscles and supporting structures – the upper and lower limbs, neck and lower back – that are caused, precipitated or exacerbated by sudden exertion or prolonged exposure to physical factors.)

Safety will always play a role in mitigating risks, but, no matter how safe an environment, an employer will always have MSD claims. In the transportation industry, the higher rates of injury can be attributed, in part, to several factors.

The nature of the work is one. Many drivers maintain a poor diet, rarely get enough sleep and are sedentary. As a result, they find themselves more susceptible to heart attacks and diabetes, as well as a myriad of strains, sprains and other musculoskeletal disorders.

Additionally, the percentage of older workers is higher in transportation than in most industries, with the Transportation Research Board estimating as many as 25% of truck drivers will be older than 65 by 2025; that translates into more severe musculoskeletal disorder claims.

So, how can a transportation company turn this around and provide a win for all parties? Let’s explore through a case study:

Marten Transport is a multi-faceted provider of transportation services offering over the road (OTR), regional, intermodal and temperature-controlled truckload services. The company has 15 operational centers and more than 3,670 employees and contractors. It needed to provide better care for MSD injuries while not accepting liability for injuries occurred outside the scope of work. Marten decided to institute the EFA Soft Tissue Management (EFA-STM) program in February 2015 to determine which injuries were work-related and which were not, as well as to provide better care.

According to Deborah Konkel, the work comp claims manager for Marten, the company uses the EFA-STM “as a fact-finding tool to help us, our employees and their medical providers better understand the nature of their injury and determine the best course of action going forward.” Under the EFA-STM program, workers are given a baseline test that is unread; after a reported injury, a second test is conducted. That data is compared with the baseline test to identify the new acute condition, distinct from any pre-existing chronic conditions.

The EFA-STM program is a paradigm shift in workers’ compensation because it provides benefits for all stakeholders by accurately separating work-related injuries from those that are not work-related and by providing objective information and, thus, better care for the work-related condition. The key question is what the physical condition of the employee was before the incident and what needs to be done to return him to pre-injury status. EFA-STM provides the required data.

To determine the benefit of the EFA-STM program, Marten’s workers’ compensation claims data from 2010-2014 was compared with claims data from 2015. The average rate of MSD injuries per 100 hires from 2010-14 was compared with the 2015 rate. The result was a 60% drop in the rate of MSD injuries per 100 hires in 2015. This translated into almost 40 fewer MSD claims in 2015. Using the 2010-14 average cost per MSD claim, the EFA-STM program yielded a direct ROI of 3.7: 1.

“Based on these results, we believe that the EFA-STM program has been a win for all parties involved and a must for companies, especially in the transportation industry” Konkel said.

How CDC Sparked the Wellness Legend

The wellness emphasis in the Affordable Care Act is built around the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) call to action in 2009 about chronic disease: The Power to Prevent, the Call to Control. On the summary page, we learn some of what the CDC calls “arresting facts”:

  •  “Chronic diseases cause seven in 10 deaths each year in the U.S.”
  •   “About 133 million Americans — nearly one in two adults — live with at least one chronic illness.”
  •   “75% of our healthcare spending is on people with chronic conditions.”

Shocking — that is, in terms of how misleading or even false the claims are and of how they created the wellness legend.

Take the statement that “chronic diseases cause seven in 10 deaths.” We have to die of something. Would it be better to die of accidents? Suicides and homicides? Mercury poisoning? Side effects of measles vaccinations gone awry?

The second statistic is also a head-scratcher. Only 223 million Americans were old enough to drink in 2009; divide 133 million into that number, and you see that a whopping 60% of adults, not “nearly one in two,” live with at least one chronic illness. Sloppy math and wording is common on the CDC site, as elsewhere it says that almost one in five youths has a BMI in the 95th percentile or above, which, of course, is mathematically impossible, as is the CDC’s calculation of our risk of death.

More importantly, how is the CDC defining “chronic disease” so broadly that so many of us have at least one? Is the CDC counting back pain? Tooth decay? Dandruff? Ring around the collar? “The facts,” as the CDC calls them, are only slightly less fatuous. For instance, the CDC counts “stroke” as a chronic disease. Although a stroke is likely preceded by chronic disease (such as severe hypertension or diabetes), it is hard to imagine a more acute medical event than one in which every minute of delay in treatment increases your odds of ending up like the Kardashians.

The CDC also counts obesity, which was only designated as a chronic disease by the American Medical Association in 2013 — and even then many people don’t accept that definition. Cancer also receives this designation, even though many diagnosed cancers are anything but chronic — they either go into remission or cause death.   “Chronic disease” implies a need for continuing therapy and vigilance. If cancer were a chronic disease, instead of sponsoring “races for the cure,” cancer advocacy groups would sponsor “races for the control and management.” And you never hear anybody say, “I have lung cancer, but my doctor says we’re staying on top of it.”

That brings us to the last bullet point. Convention typically attributes more than 80% of healthcare costs to fewer than 20% of people, meaning that costly ailments are concentrated in a relatively small group. The implication would be that, if you address that small group, your savings are disproportionate. Instead, the CDC’s data attributes 75% of costs to about 50% of the adult population, implying almost the exact opposite of the 80-20 rule: The cost of chronic disease is widely dispersed. Indeed, if you remove the rare diseases that afflict about 1% of the population but account for about 7-8% of cost, you come very close to parity between the proportion of the population with chronic disease and the proportion of total health spending attributable to chronic disease.

So what?

This urban legend based on the CDC’s call to action, appearing verbatim more than a million times on Google, is among the single biggest causes of uncontrolled healthcare spending…and is responsible for essentially the entire wellness industry.

In reality, if you strip away the expenses of those chronically ill people unrelated to their chronic condition (which are included in the CDC’s 75% statistic); prevention and management of those conditions (ditto); those aforementioned rare diseases; and unpredictable or uncontrollable exacerbations: That 75% crumbles to about 4% of expenses that fit the category of wellness-sensitive medical events. Achieving a 10% reduction in those categories — a feat rarely accomplished, which is why vendors never disclose this figure — would reduce overall spending by 0.4%, or about $25 a year per employee or spouse. Hence, few employers would ever bother with wellness.

Instead, the CDC’s  wellness legend, suggesting that 75% of costs can be attacked, encourages employers and health plans to focus on the opposite of what they should focus on. Penn State, citing this 75% statistic as justification for its controversial wellness program, provides a classic example of this wrongheaded focus, with unfortunate consequences for the university’ reputation and employee relations, with no offsetting financial benefit.

Typical of the wellness industry’s embrace of this wellness legend is Bravo Wellness — also the first wellness company to brag about generating savings by punishing employees. The company takes this fallacy a step further. It deftly substitutes the words “lifestyle-related and preventable” conditions for the CDC’s language “chronic conditions”; that implies that everyone with a chronic condition, even a congenital or unavoidable, rare condition, has only his lifestyle to blame. Vendors like Bravo encourage employers to get more employees to view themselves as chronically ill, or about to become chronically ill — and encourages them to access the system.

Encouraging overdiagnosisovertreatment and overprescribing isn’t just a bad idea on its own. It distracts employers from real issues such as provider pricing disparities, hospital safety, outliers (the small percentage of employees who really do account for half the cost (usually not because of a chronic ailment, though) and pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), whose per-drug margins are about twice what they would be if anyone spent any time weed-whacking their obfuscations of rebates, implementation fees, etc. and simply negotiated the margin directly.

What to do next?

It seems like all our posts end the same way: Stop poking your employees with needles.

We’ve debunked wellness’s science and math, its outcomes, its philosophy … and now its epidemiological premise. Even as their credibility is shredded, most wellness industry players have steadfastly refused to defend themselves at all. Instead, they avoid all debates on this site, because, although many of the vendors and consultants appear to be incapable of critical thinking, they are smart enough to realize that facts are their worst nightmare.

Five Things Employers Need to Know About Mental Health

“The workplace is the last crucible of sustained human contact for many of the 30,000 people who kill themselves each year in the United States. A coworker’s suicide has a deep, disturbing impact on work mates. For managers, such tragedies pose challenges no one covered in management school.” (Shellenbarger, 2001)1

Five things employers need to know about workplace mental health and suicide include some bad news…

  1. Depression is a top driver of health care costs to employers.2 3 Depression represents employers' highest per capita medical spending. (The per-capita annual cost of depression is significantly more than that for hypertension or back problems, and comparable to that for diabetes or heart disease. People with depression also have more sick days than people suffering from other conditions.)4
  2. If we take a snapshot of any workplace at any given point in time, at least one in five people will have a diagnosable mental health condition.5 The most common are mood disorders like depression or substance abuse disorders like alcohol abuse.
  3. The majority of people who die by suicide are of working age. While other groups’ suicide rates are holding steady or decreasing, the rates for men and women in the middle years have increased significantly over the last decade.

And some good news…

  1. By engaging in simple preventative steps (e.g., stress management or depression screenings) anyone can help maintain their own mental health. By learning practical tactics (e.g., becoming suicide prevention gatekeepers or referring coworkers to employee assistance services) employees can help promote the mental health and safety of others.6 7
  2. A comprehensive and evidence-based approach to suicide prevention and mental health promotion exists,8 is cost-effective9 and gives employers a clear guide on what to do. By being “visible, vocal and visionary” leaders, employers can set the expectation that a culture of health and safety is a priority and that mental health promotion and suicide prevention are a critical part of that priority.

While managers often feel responsible for the well-being of the people they supervise, very few have been given any substantial training in how to identify people in a suicide crisis and how to link them to life-saving care. Employers can play a critical role in closing this gap through a comprehensive approach.

A five-year analysis of the nation’s death rates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the suicide rate among 45- to 54-year-olds increased 20% from 1999 to 2004, while rates for youth and elderly persons are decreasing. The Surgeon General’s National Strategy for Suicide Prevention targets employers as critical stakeholders in the prevention of suicide.10

While suicide prevention may seem to be too intensive for workplaces to take on, there are many upstream prevention strategies that do not take much effort but yield tremendous results. Here are low-cost, high impact strategies employers can take to promote mental health and prevent suicide:

  1. Promote the Suicide Prevention Lifeline. This free resource (1-800-273-8255 [TALK]) is available to employees 24/7 and used by both people in crisis and those who are trying to support them. The line connects to local crisis call centers and is answered by certified volunteers, most of whom have had more training and experience in de-escalating suicidal behavior than many of our mental health professionals.
  2. Participate in National Screening Days.  Whenever we can identify a health condition early in its course, we are in a much stronger position to prevent it from escalating. Employers can help coordinate screening days as a part of a larger national awareness effort. Mental Health Screening offers workplaces promotional and screening tools for National Depression Screening Day (October), National Eating Disorders Awareness Program (February), National Alcohol Screening Day (April), and National Anxiety Disorders Screening Day (May). In addition, their WorkplaceResponse program gives employees an anonymous opportunity to self-screen for depression, bipolar disorder, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, generalized anxiety disorders, eating disorders, and alcohol use disorders.  These screenings offer immediate results and referrals to an organization’s employee assistance program and community-based resources.
  3. Reward Mental Wellness. For example, the Working Minds program offers a contest every year to workplaces that have developed mentally healthy policies and practices that demonstrate positive outcomes like retention, lower absenteeism, and higher employee satisfaction. These workplaces then become the model for others.
  4. Change the Conversation Through Social Marketing.  By showing models of people who have experienced significant psychological distress and who have recovered and are thriving, employers can show that struggles are normal and increase a sense of efficacy among the hopeless. For example, workplaces can develop a multimedia campaign that lets people know they are not alone if they are thinking about suicide and that many resources exist to help. If the company’s leaders are courageous enough to model this message, the culture of the organization usually shifts accordingly.
  5. Offer Educational Programs on Mental Illness. Employee assistance professionals can provide “lunch-and-learn” sessions that increase awareness about the signs and symptoms of depression, bipolar disorder, alcohol dependence, and other mental illnesses that can lead to suicide.  These presentations should share how treatments are effective while dissipating misperceptions people have that create barriers to care.
  6. Training Staff to Become Suicide Prevention Gatekeepers. In addition to offering general training, workplaces should train key people in suicide prevention gatekeeper methods. The concept is similar to CPR – train lay people to know the warning signs of a life-threatening situation and how to sustain a person’s life until they can be linked to professional care. Many models for this training exist, including Working Minds, QPR, and ASIST. For more information, review the gatekeeper matrix on the Suicide Prevention Resource Center website.

As our workplaces accelerate from the industrial age to the information age and beyond, we come to increasingly rely on our mental muscle to get us through our workday. Like any other muscle, our mental muscle can get injured or fatigued, and we can experience high levels of distress, sometimes leading to a suicide crisis. Workplaces can prepare for this in many ways and develop a comprehensive approach to reduce suicide risk and promote mental resiliency.

For more information, visit WorkingMinds.org. Working Minds is one of the first programs in the country to provide workplaces with a comprehensive approach to suicide prevention. Working Minds is a priority program of the Carson J Spencer Foundation based in Golden, Colorado. In a little more than a lunch hour, employees at all levels of a workplace can be taught how to identify warning signs and risk factors and help link distressed coworkers to appropriate care.

1 Schellenbarger, S. (2001, June 13). Impact of colleague’s suicide is strongly felt in workplace. The Wall Street Journal.

2 Mental Health America (n.d.) Depression in the Workplace.

3 Witters, D. (2013, July 24). Depression Costs U.S. Workplaces $23 Billion in Absenteeism.

4 Managed Care Magazine (2006, Spring) Depression in the Workplace Cost Employers Billions Each Year: Employers Take Lead in Fighting Depression.

5 Gray, T. (2004) ValueOptions Articles – Managers.

6 Paul, R. & Spencer-Thomas, S. (2012). Changing Workplace Culture to End the Suicide Standstill. National Council Magazine. (2), 126-127.

7 Spencer-Thomas, S. (2012). Developing a workplace suicide prevention program. Journal of Employee Assistance, 42(1), 12-15.

8 National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention (2013) Comprehensive Blueprint for Workplace Suicide Prevention. Retrieved from http://actionallianceforsuicideprevention.org/task-force/workplace/cspp

9 National Institute of Mental Health (2007, September) Workplace Depression Screening, Outreach and Enhanced Treatment Improves Productivity, Lowers Employer Costs.

10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service. (2001). National strategy for suicide prevention: Goals and objectives for action, p. 67.

New AMA Classification Of Obesity: How It Affects Workers’ Compensation And Mandatory Reporting

On June 16, 2013, the American Medical Association voted to declare obesity a disease rather than a comorbidity factor. This change in classification will affect 78 million American Adults and 12 million children. The new status for obesity means that this is now considered a medical condition that requires treatment. In fact, a recent Duke University / RTI International / Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study estimates 42 percent of U.S. adults will become obese by 2030.

According to the Medical Dictionary, obesity has been defined as a weight at least 20% above the weight corresponding to the lowest death rate for individuals of a specific height, gender, and age (ideal weight). Twenty to forty percent over ideal weight is considered mildly obese; 40-100% over ideal weight is considered moderately obese; and 100% over ideal weight is considered severely, or morbidly, obese. More recent guidelines for obesity use a measurement called BMI (body mass index) which is the individual's weight divided by their height squared times 703. BMI over 30 is considered obese.

The World Health Organization further classifies BMIs of 30.00 or higher into one of three classes of obesity:

  • Obese class I = 30.00 to 34.99
  • Obese class II = 35.00 to 39.99
  • Obese class III = 40.00 or higher

People in obese class III are considered morbidly obese. According to a 2012 Gallup Poll, 3.6% of Americans were morbidly obese in 2012.

The decision to reclassify obesity gives doctors a greater obligation to discuss with patients their weight problem and how it's affecting their health while enabling them to get reimbursed to do so.

According to the Duke University study, obesity increases the healing times of fractures, strains and sprains, and complicates surgery. According to another Duke University study that looked at the records for work-related injuries:

  • Obese workers filed twice as many comp claims.
  • Obese workers had seven times higher medical costs.
  • Obese workers lost 13 times more days of work.
  • Body parts most prone to injury for obese individuals included lower extremities, wrists or hands, and the back. Most common injuries were slips and falls, and lifting.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said the costs to U.S. businesses related to obesity exceed $13 billion each year.

Furthermore, a 2011 Gallup survey found that obese employees account for a disproportionately high number of missed workdays. Also earlier National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) research of workers' compensation claims found that claimants with a comorbidity code indicating obesity experience medical costs that are a multiple of what is observed for comparable non-obese claimants. The NCCI study demonstrated that claimants with a comorbidity factor indicating obesity had five times longer indemnity duration than claimants that were not identified as obese.

Prior to June 16, 2013, the ICD code for comorbidity factors for obesity in workers' was ICD-9 code 278. This is related to obesity-related medical complications, as opposed to the condition of obesity. Now the new ICD codes will indicate a disease, or condition of obesity which needs to be medically addressed. How will this affect work-related injuries?

Instead of obesity being a comorbitity issue, it can now become a secondary claim. If injured workers gain weight due to medications they are placed on as a result of their work-related injury or if an injured worker gains weight since they cannot exercise or keep fit because of their work-related injury and their BMI exceeds 30, they are considered obese and are eligible for medical industrially related treatment. In fact, the American Disability Act Amendment of 2008 allows for a broader scope of protection and the classification of obesity as a disease means that an employer needs to be cognizant that if someone has been treated for this disease for over 6 months then they would be considered protected under the American Disability Act Amendment.

Consider yet another factor: with the advent of Mandatory Reporting (January 1, 2011) by CMS that is triggered by the diagnosis (diagnosis code), the new medical condition of obesity will further make the responsible party liable for this condition and all related conditions for work-related injuries and General Liability claims with no statute of limitations. It is vital to understand that, as of January 1, 2011, Medicare has mandated all work-related and general liability injuries be reported to CMS in an electronic format. This means that CMS has the mechanism to look back and identify work comp related medical care payments made by Medicare. This is a retroactive statute and ultimately, it will be the employer and/or insurance carrier that will be held accountable.

The carrier or employer could pay the future medical cost twice — once to the claimant at settlement and later when Medicare seeks reimbursement of the medical care they paid on behalf of the claimant. This is outside the MSA criteria. The cost of this plus the impact of the workers' compensation costs as well as ADAA issues for reclassification of obesity for an employer and carrier are incalculable.

The solution is baseline testing so that only claims that arise out of the course and scope of employment (AOECOE) are accepted. If a work-related claim is not AOECOE and can be proved by objective medical evidence such as a pre- and post-assessment and there is no change from the baseline, then not only is there no workers' compensation claim, there is no OSHA-recordable claim, and no mandatory reporting issue.

A proven example of a baseline test for musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) cases is the EFA-STM program. EFA-STM Program begins by providing baseline injury testing for existing employees and new hires. The data is only interpreted when and if there is a soft tissue claim. After a claim, the injured worker is required to undergo the post-loss testing. The subsequent comparison objectively demonstrates whether or not an acute injury exists. If there is a change from the baseline site specific treatment, recommendations are made for the AOECOE condition ensuring that the injured worker receives the best care possible.

Baseline programs such as the EFA-STM ensure that the employee and employer are protected and take the sting out of the new classification by the AMA for obesity.