Tag Archives: employee

3 Tips for Improving Healthcare Literacy

Today, innovative cost-containment solutions are helping employers “curb” the increasing cost of healthcare.  However, these solutions are only as good as the education tied to them.  A solution without effective education is useless and can even be costly.

Employee education has been a sticking point in the employee benefits world.  Many employers haven’t done a good job educating employees and have thus missed the boat on containing costs. According to a 2003 assessment (I know, old!) by the U.S. Department of Education, only 12% of U.S. adults have a proficient level of healthcare literacy. That is scary.

The days of educating the workforce about what they have, how much it costs and how to sign up are long gone. Stop repeating the same message year after year. The focus of your education has to be around improving the healthcare literacy of your workforce.

The good news is that there are consultants around the country creating some amazing messages. Folks like Jim Millaway, Gary Becker and Al Lewis are innovating the way benefit education is provided, helping employers reduce the cost of health insurance.

With that, let’s look at three employee education tips that can help you contain costs.

See Also: On Air Traffic Control and Health Costs

  1. Effective Education Is a Year-long Process

If your education strategy consists of nothing more than the annual open enrollment meeting, we need to talk and please keep reading! By the time your employees walk out of the meeting, they will forget 90% of what they heard; especially how to use a new cost-containment tool effectively. To ensure the new solution is a success, you have to keep the message in front of your employees all year long.

  1. Make Sure Your Message Helps You Accomplish Your Goal

Remember, your goal is to “curb” or even reduce the cost of your health insurance, so strategic education has to be a part of your long-term plan. Do not rely on the communication provided by carriers and vendors, as they are often too vague and provide information most of your employees already know (e.g. your smokers already know they should quit as their doctor has been telling them for years). To achieve your goal, you need to make sure your education aligns with the objective, improving health literacy. Focus on the kind of education that will help your employees help your medical plan save money. Strategic education is the wave of the future. Innovative solutions like Quizzify are giving employees the opportunity to become stewards of their own healthcare journey, helping both their checkbook and the bottom line of their employer.

  1. Your Message Has to Be Clear and To-the-Point

Trying to find the right avenue for educating the workforce is not easy. However, using newsletters and brochures to communicate your new cost-containment solution will not work because your employees will not read them. One way to get your message across effectively is through video. Videos only require employees to hit “play” and are short and to-the-point, and can be customized to convey the message you want.

Employees like the videos because little time and effort is wasted in watching and the employer is able to craft the message (with help) to best meet its objective. A video campaign can be a very effective way of improving the health literacy of your workforce through short, focused messages.

Crafting the right educational message is hard work and requires time and effort. But if it is done well, you will not only be happy about your new cost-containment solution, you will create a highly educated and empowered workforce that will have a positive impact on your bottom line.

How Advocates Can Reengage Workers

A historical challenge in workers’ compensation has been creating the best possible approach to communication: consistently reinforcing transparency, putting the injured employees’ needs first and reassuring them that their claims team is working in their best interests.

Employers today, more than ever before, are engaged in the workers’ compensation process and, in partnership with Sedgwick, have developed efficient healthcare and treatment solutions that provide the highest quality of care. They have also developed return-to-work programs that not only accommodate potential injury-related restrictions and ensure compliance with state and federal employment laws (e.g. Americans with Disabilities Act) but that also encourage employees to come back to work as quickly as possible. This approach ultimately results in an improved experience and outcome for all parties. The responsibilities of claims and managed care professionals encompass many activities that already assist with this process, but there is an emerging need to take employee care above and beyond the standard claims management efforts.

This expanded approach involves being an advocate for the employee by listening, communicating, providing information and proper medical care, explaining how this complicated process works—and being there to assist them at every turn. From the time an injury occurs to the moment the claim is closed, the examiners, the nurses and the colleagues who assist the employee all serve important roles that can have an impact on the outcome of the claim. It’s through their experiences that our industry can see the value of employee advocacy and the advantages it can bring for all parties involved.

Exploring the Shift in Philosophy 

There seems to be a change in the philosophy of employers as it relates to workers’ compensation injuries. Today, businesses are more interested in making sure their injured employees get everything they need to recover, and they are willing to spend the money and do all the right things as a part of their responsibilities as an employer. Instead of questioning claims, they are more focused on restoring the health of their employees. To do this successfully, employers must work closely with claims administrators to develop and implement a process around employee advocacy. This may include assigning a trained, knowledgeable member of the claims team to guide employees through the process or connecting them with a nurse who can assist with their medical concerns. There are different options based on the individual employer’s needs, but each one is designed around the same objective: improving injured employees’ health and well-being.

Surrounding the Employee With Support

The employee advocate typically performs an outreach to the employee after receipt of the first report of injury. The advocate is someone who asks how the employee is doing and offers a sympathetic ear. The advocate is also someone who has information on their claim and is connected to all of the resources available to assist the employee. This initial call can offer several advantages, including:

  • Reassuring the employee that the employer cares and that the employee is not going to lose his job for filing a workers’ compensation claim;
  • Providing guidance to the injured employee that could prevent a minor claim from becoming something major;
  • Answering initial questions to resolve possible issues that could lead to litigation—if the employee needs additional information, the advocate can get what she needs and call back; and
  • Keeping everyone calm at the outset of the injury and having a positive impact on the employee’s attitude.

In this role, the advocate becomes the employee’s key contact and will make sure the employee does not feel alone in this process. The topics for the advocate’s outbound calls may include explaining workers’ compensation; setting expectations related to claim investigation, medical bills, prescriptions, benefit payments and return to work; or explaining the roles of the adjuster or nurse case manager assigned to the employee’s claim.

Providing Specialized Clinical Advocacy

Clinical resources may be needed for an employee based on his injury. This type of advocacy includes a phone call from a registered nurse who will ask the employee how she is doing, answer her medical questions and direct her to the best provider for her injury. At this time, the nurse may also identify any psychosocial issues or other concerns that may affect the employee’s ability to recover or return to work, and the nurse may then direct the employee to behavioral health or return-to-work specialists.

Benefits and Proven Results

When employees are injured at work, this can be an unsettling time for them—filled with many questions. Providing upfront communication and a healthcare team focused on their well-being can make the process better for everyone. Employer benefits include reductions in litigation, medical costs and lost time. With the average cost of litigated workers’ compensation claims about 65% more expensive than non-litigated claims, reassuring employees and keeping them as happy as possible throughout the claims process can have immeasurable value.

We have experience working with several employers that have implemented successful advocacy programs. One is a retail company that has an advocate who contacts every employee on the first day of an injury to see how they are doing. This company’s goal was to reduce litigation, and it has accomplished that through this process. The company feels having someone reach out gives each employee a sense of security, as well as the reassurance that he won’t lose his job due to filing a claim and the feeling that he is part of a system that protects him.

Focusing on the Employee

Examiners, nurses, assigned advocates and other members of the claims and managed care teams all work together to ensure the injured employee has the best possible outcomes. Having a team to surround the employee with care and recovery solutions provides significant dividends related to the continuation of productivity and employee morale—and it can positively influence the overall view of their employer.

10 Reasons Why Healthcare Varies

Imagine your recommended medical treatment came with this warning label: “Your results may vary. Your results are not guaranteed. Outcomes can include preventable complications, up to (and including) hospital-acquired infections, hospital readmission and premature death.”

Caveat emptor or, “buyer beware,” has never been truer than in today’s healthcare system.

The use of evidence-based medicine) protocols delivers higher quality, lower prices and improved outcomes throughout the country for many different treatments. Scientific studies have proven the efficacy of following best-practice guidelines. Achievable results include reduced premature mortality, improved quality of life and better clinical outcomes, which means faster recovery.

See Also: Cutting Healthcare Costs Doesn’t Lower Quality

By no means is this a blanket assertion that the practice of all medicine can be reduced to a checklist, a differential diagnosis and a universal treatment regimen. The seven billion human beings on this planet each have trillions of cells and billions of possible variations. In addition, there are many social determinants of health, including social, economic and physical environmental factors.

The fact is, no treatment regimen works 100% of the time on 100% of the people.

However, there are proven, evidence-based strategies that effectively deliver higher quality and better outcomes with scale (which means lower costs). Therefore, it is incumbent upon healthcare providers and purchasers to live up to their fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of the consumer and the insured employee.

So, what happens in the practice of medicine that results in so much variability in treatment?

Today’s medicine is part science and part art. Unfortunately, for too many years, perverse reimbursement incentives have clouded and conflicted an industry that requires incredibly nuanced judgment on conditions with many variables and possible outcomes.

Outcomes are largely determined by the skill and experience of a physician or team of physicians. Parity may exist in professional sports, but that is not the case in the practice of medicine.

As a result, the practice of medicine is significantly influenced by individual providers and their practice patterns, beliefs, biases, needs and preferences, what we call “10 Reasons Why Medical Quality, Price and Outcomes May Vary.”

See Also: Healthcare Costs: We’ve Had Enough!

Depending on your location, your level of engagement and your particular treatment, the quality, price and outcome are likely to be affected by the actual provider of services. The following list includes 10 reasons why the practice of medicine is driven by the attitude, behavior and skill of the provider:

Screen Shot 2016-04-22 at 12.12.31 PM

The typical American healthcare consumer still believes he is a patient and acts accordingly to eliminate the illness, not always recognizing the role he plays in his outcomes. The irreversible change taking place is that individuals have to learn to become consumers of healthcare by becoming engaged and taking responsibility for both their life outside the medical system and the choices they make when accessing medical care. The risks are real.

Understanding the risk can empower recognition and awareness that acting like a consumer is in your best interest, and that might just save your life. For additional free assistance on avoiding wasteful, unnecessary or poor quality medical tests, treatments or procedures go to www.choosingwisely.org.

3 Things to Know on PPO Networks

Employers across the country are looking to provide employees with the largest and widest PPO networks as a means of giving employees choice.  Somehow the health insurance industry has determined that networks should be “all-inclusive.” The more medical professionals and facilities in your network, the better your network is. It is time to raise a red flag on this kind of thinking. Before your organization looks to increase employee access to doctors and hospitals, there are three things you must understand about PPO networks.

Larger Networks Can Lead to Larger Plan Costs

You hear it all the time. Insurance carriers battle over who has the largest network both locally and nationally. Now, having a network with a national presence can be appealing if you are an employer with facilities and a workforce scattered across the country. However, a larger network opens the door for greater access to poor-performing physicians and medical facilities. The bigger the network, the greater the odds your employees are accessing doctors and hospitals who are not on the right side of cost, quality and outcomes. As a result, your medical plan’s costs continue to rise year after year.

See Also: Untapped Opportunity in Healthcare

A Network “Discount” Can Be Misleading

In a typical medical plan, the majority of the member population will use the plan via day-to-day services such as preventive exams, sick children and the occasional medication. For these folks, a network discount does an adequate job reducing costs for both the member and the health plan. However, imaging, surgeries and hospital stays are driving plan costs today, and it is here where a network “discount” can be misleading. Yes, network discounts are still applied to these services and, yes, the discounts can be 50% or more. However, when facilities are allowed to charge 400%+ of the limit allowed by Medicare, you are not getting much of a deal at all. To put it into simple terms, if I told you my iPhone is worth $2,000 but agreed to sell it to you for a 50% discount, I would still be ripping you off.

Networks Often Block Creativity

Recently, I had an interesting conversation with a national insurance carrier about a mutual client. After a thorough review of the client’s claim activity, we uncovered several facilities that were providing imaging services (MRIs, CT scans, etc.) at a low cost, much lower than the same services provided at other facilities. Knowing this, the client wanted to give members incentives to choose the low-cost facilities when needing imaging services by agreeing to have the health plan pay 100% of the service, saving both the member and the health plan money. However, we were told “no” by the insurance carrier because it had a duty to “keep the rest of the network happy.” If we are going to create change in the health insurance market, employers need to implement creativity into health-plan design. Unfortunately, most PPO networks discourage this kind of thinking.

Remember, there is a place for PPO networks within the healthcare industry. However, if you are an employer looking for creative ways to give your employees access to high-quality, low-cost doctors and hospitals, do not count on PPO networks to pave the way.

 

An Open Letter on the Oklahoma Option

I’m the founder and CEO of WorkersCompensationOptions.com (WCO), a company dedicated to workers’ compensation (WC) and its legal alternatives. This letter is intended to quell the concerns of employees in our client companies—employees who may have been distressed by the recent (mostly negative) publicity from ProPublica and NPR regarding options to WC in Texas and Oklahoma.

In case you only saw one installment from the Insult to Injury series, I’ll provide a quick summary. In 2014, the project’s authors started to assimilate massive amounts of data from their research concerning each state’s (and the federal government’s) WC system. In March 2015, the authors began releasing articles with an indisputable premise: Collectively, these systems need improvement.

That commendable beginning eventually gave way, however, to a hypothesis that is supported neither by reality nor by the overwhelming quantity of data the authors provide. Their conclusion (that employers are in cahoots with insurers to pressure attorneys, anonymous doctors and legislators into discarding the lives of an unfortunate few for the sake of bolstering corporate profits) completely misses the mark in pinpointing why so many WC systems are broken beyond repair. In fact, attorneys and doctors put at least as much pressure on WC systems as insurers, and any attempt to depict the medical and legal communities as innocent bystanders in the WC feud is simply too naive to be taken seriously.[1] I do not doubt the authors’ sincerity in addressing a serious societal problem, but I also do not believe they are equipped to understand the problem they sought—however earnestly—to demystify for their readers. Worse yet, I fear they have positioned themselves in the WC space in a manner that is only likely to retard the implementation of practical solutions.

This letter is prompted by the article on Oct. 14, 2015, which painted an inaccurate—even an irresponsible—picture of both Texas nonsubscription (TXNS) and the Oklahoma option (OKO). As that article’s title (“Inside Corporate America’s Campaign to Ditch Workers’ Comp”) is lengthy, I’ll shorten it to CDWC going forward.

Texas Nonsubscribing Employees: What Can We Learn?

Texas is exceptional in the WC world because it has, for more than a century, offered employers a viable alternative to WC. Of approximately 380,000 employers in Texas, roughly two-thirds subscribe to a traditional WC system; the other third are nonsubscribers who develop their own models. That’s about 120,000 different systems, and there is plenty to be learned. We’ve seen various organically grown components develop from these disparate systems, many of which superficially resemble WC. Despite those similarities, however, industry experts understand how counterproductive it is to make unilateral comparisons between TXNS and WC.

The authors of CDWC didn’t get that memo.

Of all the various lessons learned from diverse TXNS models, one runs counter to conventional WC dogma: Employers can protect themselves while delivering superior care for employees at a fraction of the cost of WC. Eliminating the inflated costs associated with abusive practices that run rampant in WC is a critical component of that particular lesson.

Because the CDWC authors insist on judging TXNS through the lens of WC, TXNS looks to them like a system that would appeal to skinflint employers who simply do not care whether their employees get hurt. However, because employees of nonsubscribing companies can sue their employers for tort, the decision to opt out of WC is likely to be penny-wise and pound-foolish for employers who do not take measures to ensure the safety of employees. The CDWC authors’ failure to unpack the importance of tort negligence means many readers will come away from the article without understanding that a typical $50,000 payout in WC could easily be either $0 or $5 million in TXNS—depending on who is at fault for the accident. Even more disappointing is CDWC’s attempt, in a one-sentence paragraph, to gloss over one of WC’s most dangerous shortcomings: the extent to which the no-fault arrangement between employers and employees has removed incentives for safety in the workplace throughout the country.

If you are an employee of one of our Texas nonsubscribers, rest assured that your employer has every reason to minimize workplace accidents and to take very good care of you if an occupational injury occurs.

In a nutshell, your interests are aligned with your employer’s—another critical lesson we’ve learned from TXNS.

Oklahoma Option Employees: A Whack-a-Mole WC System Led You Here

ProPublica and NPR harp on a consistent theme throughout the Insult to Injury series: WC is broken. We at WCO agree, and Oklahoma may provide the single best example of how and why a state’s WC system becomes unsustainable.

The WC ecosystem is made up of five major communities: insurance, medical, legal, employer and employee. Abuse within the system by any of these communities leads to adjustments to the boundaries of the system. Throughout the Insult to Injury series, the authors go out of their way to sidestep the discussion of systemic abuse. They even attempt to dismiss fraud by citing a study that minimizes its role. Abuse and fraud in WC are, in some ways, analogous to speeding on the highway: Almost all drivers abuse the speed limit, but very few are issued citations. Similarly, the cases of clear-cut fraud in WC only reflect a small portion of the amount of abuse going on. But even if we allow the authors to exclude all instances of clear-cut fraud from the WC conversation, we are still left with rampant abuse driven by insidious systemic incentives.

For decades, abuses and inefficiencies within the WC system have led to each of the five communities touting the need for major reforms—at the others’ expense. Real reform threatens each community, which leads to stalemates in negotiations. Major upheaval has been avoided via the compromise of pushing and pulling the system’s boundaries, resulting in a decades-long game of whack-a-mole being played across the nation. If one voice cries, “Data shows an alarming trend in opioid abuse,” that mole gets swatted by requiring more medical credentials for prescribing pain killers. When another shrieks, “Overutilization is surging,” that mole is whacked through costly and time-consuming independent medical examinations. When someone else observes, “Our disability payouts are higher than neighboring jurisdictions,” that mole prompts us to lower disability payouts. Immediately, a fourth voice shouts, “Pharmaceutical abuses make up 8.4% of total costs,” and that mole persuades us to introduce drug formularies. But there isn’t even a moment of silence before another voice remarks, “Our analysis shows dismemberment payouts in this jurisdiction are lower than those of our neighboring jurisdiction.” That mole gets whacked by proposing legislation to increase dismemberment payouts—legislation that is dead on arrival.[2] At some point, we have to realize the moles are multiplying faster than we can whack them. (If my commentary doesn’t apply to other jurisdictions, I’m happy to restrict it to Oklahoma and Texas because writers can best serve their readers by acknowledging the limitations of their own expertise.)

Even if we concede that the changes detailed in the paragraph above aren’t necessarily bad (which I’m not conceding; I’m just trying to be polite and move the argument along), they demonstrate a persistent pattern of outcomes, inclusive of abuse, inherent in any hierarchical bureaucratic system. Regulators are busy reacting to entrenched abuses while market participants find new and exciting ways to game the system. This futile game of whack-a-mole is endless.

The Sooner State had a front row seat to witness what TXNS accomplished—both the good and the bad.[3] With that first-hand knowledge, the Oklahoma legislature has finally provided the state—and the country—with an opportunity to see whether real change can restore function to a malfunctioning system. While WC stakeholders assure us they are only a few more whacks-at-the-mole away from making WC hum, Oklahoma lawmakers have written a new chapter in the history of workplace accident legislation. The OKO is neither WC nor TXNS.

The brilliance of the OKO is that it doesn’t attempt to overhaul a broken WC system. The legislators effectively stepped away from that decades-old stalemate. Instead of an all-out overthrow, they left WC in place and created an option for employers who were willing to try something new—which is exactly how WC itself was introduced a century ago.

Because the OKO is substantially modeled on TXNS, it is easy to see why the CDWC writers conflated the two in their analysis. The errors in CDWC concerning ERISA’s applicability, employee benefits and appeals committee processes in Oklahoma are all presumably honest mistakes made by writers who, in their zeal to distinguish TXNS and the OKO from WC, failed to distinguish TXNS and the OKO from each other.

Nevertheless, it’s important for employees to understand that TXNS varies dramatically from one employer to another, and many of the rules concerning TXNS do not apply north of the Red River.

Although the CDWC authors misleadingly couple TXNS and the OKO with respect to ERISA’s applicability, ERISA plays no direct role in occupational accidents in the OKO.[4] We’ll be happy to get you a legal opinion on that, but for our purposes regarding CDWC, take my non-legal opinion as on the record. If others disagree, they should go on the record, as well. While ERISA has served employers and employees well in TXNS, its role in the OKO is only implied (if that). We are free to use it where we wish, as long as we are compliant at the state level.

Presumably tied to their ERISA misapplication, the CDWC authors assert that “benefits under opt-out plans are subject to income and payroll taxes.” Such tax advice is unusual from investigative journalists without citation, and I have asked the authors to share their source. Although the jury is still out on this tax issue, it is a point the CDWC authors must distort to substantiate their otherwise baffling claim that the workplace accident plans of OKO employers “almost universally have lower benefits.”[5] If any OKO plans really do offer benefits that aren’t at least as good as those provided by WC, they’re illegal. That’s how the legislators have written the law, and it’s what they’re dedicated to achieving for workers, regardless of obfuscations invoking TXNS, ERISA and unresolved tax implications.

The authors of CDWC also completely misrepresent appeals committees for at least a majority of OKO employers. The authors overlook a dramatic improvement to employee protection that the OKO makes to TXNS when they claim that appeals committees in Oklahoma work analogously to appeals committees in Texas: “Workers must accept whatever is offered or lose all benefits. If they wish to appeal, they can—to a committee set up by their employers.” That’s dead wrong. Executives at each of our OKO employers are fully aware that, in case of an employee appeal, the employer has nothing to do with the selection of the appeals committee panel members or the work they complete. The process is independent from the employer and extremely fair.[6] The CDWC authors would do well to read Section 211 of the law more carefully.

On the subject of benefit denials, I’ll share a single data point from our OKO book: To date, we have denied exactly one claim. This is a nascent system, so we must be very careful in drawing actuarial conclusions. Still, our company has led more employers from traditional WC into the new OKO than any other retailer, so we have a bit of credibility to offer on this subject. The point of the system isn’t to deny benefits to deserving employees but to ensure benefits are delivered more efficiently. The system is working.

The CDWC authors only provide one OKO case study, Rachel Jenkins. Strangely, they lump Jenkins in with four TXNS case studies. The Jenkins case is still being tried. We will withhold opinions—as we hope others would—until a more appropriate time.

As a reminder, while the OKO law is stronger today than ever, if it were to be deemed unconstitutional by the Oklahoma Supreme Court, we would have 90 days to get everyone back into traditional WC (per Section 213.B.4.).

Next: Vigilance and Diligence

My comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any associations or lobbyists. I have no interest in debating those who inexplicably assume that any alternatives proposed to a failing system must stem from sinister motives. However, I encourage anyone (from prospective clients to employees of existing clients) with questions or concerns to call me.

Another option for learning more is to click here and watch a formal debate regarding the OKO. This footage was shot in September 2015. It features Michael Clingman arguing against the OKO while I, predictably, argue for it. One thing you can’t miss in that video is my desire to oust most attorneys from the scene. To help explain, I’ll adapt a quotation from John F. Kennedy (who was discussing taxation) to my own area of concern (the well-being of employees): “In short, it is a paradoxical truth that employee outcomes from increased WC protections are worse today, while economic results suffer, and the soundest way to create higher and better standards of living for employees is to eliminate these abused protections.” For philosopher kings, the theory of the OKO may not sound as good as the theory of WC, but when it comes to practical realities the results demand everyone’s attention.

To summarize my primary criticism of Insult to Injury, it simply hasn’t done enough. The story it tells is insufficient and smacks of partisanship and ideology, two biases that ProPublica’s journalists allegedly avoid. WC is substantially more complex than a corporation-out-to-exploit-its-workforce short story. Ignoring abuse in each of the communities in a five-sided WC debate demonstrates a lack of journalistic impartiality and a stunning deficiency of perception. Moreover, to my knowledge, ProPublica hasn’t crafted any relevant suggestions for legislation, simply leaving its readers with the vague and implicit notion that federal oversight is needed. If that is the goal of Insult to Injury—to provide one-sided, emotional yarns alongside a treasure trove of data, hoping it will all spur some federally elected officials to create real change at long last—then I suspect ProPublica will still be holding this subject up to the light of opprobrium upon the retirement of each of the series’ authors.

We do not aspire to win over the authors or even their followers. We will focus our energies each day on providing the best workplace accident programs for employers and employees alike. Our results should speak for themselves.

Finally, I am not an attorney, and nothing in this letter should be taken as legal advice.

Sincere regards,

Daryl Davis

Footnotes:

[1] With medical providers, overutilization is always a concern. Click here and watch the video from the 12-minute to the 15-minute mark for a detailed description of rampant WC abuse by surgeons who provide unnecessary and damaging back procedures. If the workers weren’t disabled prior to the surgeries, many were afterward. As for the legal community, simply view slide 73 of the NCCI’s 2013 Oklahoma Advisory Forum. WC disability payments, which is where attorneys get their cut, were 38% higher in Oklahoma than in neighboring states—not because jobs are 38% more dangerous in Oklahoma than in Kansas or Texas but because Oklahoma attorneys are 38% more effective at gaming the state’s WC system.

[2] Alabama SB 330—which was prompted by Insult to Injurynever got out of conference. From what I could gather, lengthy negotiations between several different interest groups led nowhere, with the Alabama Medical Association at the center of this particular stalemate. Not surprisingly, the two special sessions called by Alabama Gov. Bentley in 2015 were strictly focused on the state’s budgetary crisis; this bill was never discussed.

[3] The final Texas case study offered in CDWC deals with Billy Walker, who fell to his death while on the job. The upside to TXNS is his estate’s common law right to pursue a tort lawsuit against his employer. The employer could have been ordered to pay Walker’s estate a settlement in the millions, but the employer filed bankruptcy before any such judgment could be awarded, which is plainly an unacceptable outcome. This demonstrates a lack of surety—the single biggest problem in TXNS. OKO addresses this issue in various ways, most notably in Section 205 of Title 85A, which guarantees surety for injured workers.

[4] For the non-occupational components of your OKO program, ERISA does apply.

[5] Per Section 203.B. of the statute, compliant plans “shall provide for payment of the same forms of benefits included in the Administrative Workers’ Compensation Act for temporary total disability; temporary partial disability; permanent partial disability; vocational rehabilitation; permanent total disability; disfigurement; amputation or permanent total loss of use of a scheduled member; death; and medical benefits as a result of an occupational injury, on a no-fault basis, with the same statute of limitations, and with dollar, percentage and duration limits that are at least equal to or greater than the dollar, percentage and duration limits contained in Sections 45, 46 and 47 of this act.” (Emphasis mine.)

[6] Details of OKO appeals committee procedures are generally misunderstood—for now—by plaintiffs’ attorneys (and, apparently, investigative journalists). Attorneys frequently assume that, because the employer foots the bill, the employer controls the process. For a peek at how the appeals committee process really works for a majority of OKO employers, those curious should watch this video.