Skip to main content
All Posts By

robintek

POOR PRESCRIPTION MEDICATION COMPLIANCE FOR THE CHRONICALLY ILL IS COSTLY

By Employment Resources

Poor adherence to prescribed medication regimens increases the incidence of hospitalization, especially among individuals with chronic medical conditions, and consequently adds significantly to health care costs. This failure together with less-than-optimal prescribing, drug administration, and diagnoses — creates as much as $290 billion each year in avoidable health care spending, or 13% of total health care expenses. A research brief from the New England Healthcare Institute reports these figures, together with suggested interventions to stem such unnecessary spending. Employers can consider these suggested interventions in designing prescription benefit programs, to help employees improve compliance with their prescription drug regimens.

Poor medication compliance includes behaviors such as failing to pick up or renew a prescription, not taking medications in the prescribed dosage level or at prescribed intervals, stopping a prescription before it has been completed, or abandoning a prescription regimen altogether. The report cites a number of barriers to medication compliance, including cost, side effects, difficulties in managing multiple prescriptions, forgetfulness, and a lack of understanding about the medical condition being treated or the urgency for treatment when a medical condition is asymptomatic.

Individuals with chronic conditions generally demonstrate lower adherence to a prescribed medication course of treatment than those with acute conditions, and adherence drops even lower with the passage of time. And, among chronic patients, those not following a prescribed drug regimen have higher hospitalization rates and higher mortality rates. Higher hospitalization rates lead, of course, to increased medical costs.

Because individuals with chronic conditions seem to do worse following prescription drug treatment regimens, one strategy for employers to use to increase compliance is disease management and condition management programs. These programs target individuals with chronic conditions and actively work with them to help them manage their diseases. Services can include monitoring prescription drug compliance, sending refill reminders and educating members on their chronic condition, thus addressing some of the reasons cited above for prescription noncompliance.

The research brief suggests three broad strategies to improve prescription medication compliance:

  1. Reduce the cost barriers to obtaining prescribed medications. Out-of-pocket prescription drug costs can, of course, influence the extent to which a patient follows a prescribed course of treatment, with higher costs leading to lower compliance. A prescription benefit plan’s employee copayment requirements determine an employee’s out-of-pocket costs. Designing the copayment requirement to encourage filling appropriate prescriptions is key. The research brief cites “Value-Based Insurance Design (VBID)” plans with lower employee contributions and out-of-pocket costs for cost-effective medications for chronic conditions, saying this can be linked to improved medication possession ratios.
  2. Address the behaviors and preferences of individual patients. Employees will vary across a wide spectrum as to how well they understand their medical condition, how engaged they are in their overall health care management, how willing they are to ask questions of physicians and pharmacists, etc. Reaching employees with a chronic condition on an individual basis — such as can be achieved through the personal contact that is part of a disease or condition management program — can involve them more intimately with their course of treatment and enhance the probability of prescription medication compliance.
  3. Design the right medication regimen for the individual patient. According to the research brief, getting the drug regimen right in the first place could reduce prescription medication noncompliance dramatically. Poor prescribing is a particular problem for individuals taking multiple medications. Again, disease and condition management programs can help. The individual contact such programs feature helps to ensure that the patient’s medications are not contra-indicated, that the patient understands the prescribing instructions, and that the patient is, indeed, staying on top of the regimen.

In considering prescription benefit plan strategy and design, keeping these ideas in mind can help to promote appropriate employee use of prescription drugs, and with it, improved health outcomes and better managed health care costs.

Consider that you will need to:

  • Review health plan documents (and the documents for any other plans for which the audit is being conducted) to determine the definitions for all possible eligible dependents.
  • Determine the documentation you will require for substantiating eligibility. For example, in the case of a spouse, this might be not only a marriage license or certificate, but also a recently filed joint income tax return to show that the marriage continues to the present day.
  • Establish a time line for informing employees about the audit and a deadline for submitting the required documentation, and develop communications materials accordingly.
  • Determine the process by which employees can submit their documentation, and set up a mechanism to receive materials.
  • Review submitted documentation to determine whether they meet the requirements for establishing eligibility, and establish a notification and grace period process for employees who fail to submit materials properly and/or on time. Inform employees of the audit results.
  • Since these audits generate a large amount of paper, arrange for secure storage and/or disposal of the materials employees have submitted.
  • Since the audit will likely generate questions from employees, a knowledgeable person or persons must be assigned to field employee inquiries.

Some companies choose to outsource dependent eligibility audits instead of conducting them in-house. Audit service providers cite the potential cost savings that can be achieved and the amount of work involved in a thorough, well-designed audit to argue that contracting for such services delivers a good return on investment. If you decide to use an outside resource, you’ll likely have a choice of vendors. With more and more employers conducting dependent eligibility audits, an industry specializing in this particular employee benefit plan service has developed.

Other design considerations can impact the workload an audit generates. For example, in order to make the process more manageable, some companies audit only a particular dependent group, or a single company division or location at a time, instead of requiring all employees enrolling dependents to submit dependent documentation. If you’re considering homing in on particular dependent groups, data from HRAdvance’s client audit shows the distribution of ineligible dependents to be 43% children under age 19, 29% children over age 19, and 28% spouses. Another consideration that can impact the manageability of the audit is whether to conduct it retrospectively (and try to recover claims that shouldn’t have been paid) or on a forward-looking basis only. Many employers also choose to precede the audit with an amnesty period during which employees can voluntarily remove dependents from the plan with no penalty.

Since most companies traditionally have run on an honor system when covering dependents — basically taking an employee’s word for it that those dependents enrolled for coverage indeed meet a definition of eligible dependent — advance communications to alert employees of the audit, and the reasons for it, are critical to employee cooperation and, ultimately, how successful the audit will be. Use all available media, and stress that removing individuals who are not eligible for coverage will benefit not only the company, but all employees who are paying to have themselves, and family members, covered by the plan.

HRAs: AN ATTRACTIVE BENEFITS OPTION

By Employment Resources

Discussions of consumer-directed health plans frequently focus on high-deductible health plans coupled with Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Sometimes overlooked are Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), employer-funded accounts that can be a solid first step in transitioning to a consumer-directed approach to health care.

In some ways, HRAs work like other kinds of account-type health care plans. Employees can use an HRA to pay for their qualified medical expenses, together with those of a spouse and children. Such expenses could include deductibles, copayment and coinsurance amounts, and any type of expenses that fall under the Internal Revenue Code definition of a qualified medical expense. Funds withdrawn to pay for qualified medical expenses are not taxable to the employee.

From an employer’s perspective, one of the great advantages of HRAs is that they have tremendous design flexibility. Unlike HSAs, they do not need to be tied to a high-deductible health plan. Their design, however, can complement the company health care plan. For example, if you have had to make changes to your company health plan to make it more affordable — such as increasing deductible or copayment amounts — you can offset the impact of such changes on employees by setting up HRAs and letting employees know that they have access to HRA funds to pay for these increased costs. The employer can also, by plan design, limit the expenses that can be paid for through the HRA (such as only for those increased deductibles or copayments); change or enlarge the scope of reimbursable expenses year to year; and change the contribution it makes to the plan each year.

For employers unable to sponsor a comprehensive type of medical plan, an HRA can be a way to provide some health care benefit to employees. The cost of the plan would be predictable — whatever amount the employer chooses to contribute to employees’ accounts — and could vary year to year. Employees could use their HRA funds to pay for medical expenses, or apply them toward the premium of a health plan they purchase on their own.

As noted above, HRAs are employer-funded accounts; no employee contributions are permitted. However, as with any type of health plan contributions, the contributions an employer makes to an HRA are deductible. Though funding HRAs entails some expense for employers, strategic implementation can sometimes be used to offset these costs to some degree. For example, if the HRA is implemented together with health plan design changes that help control plan costs — such as an increase in deductibles or copayments — the employer can use any premium cost savings to help fund the HRA.

HRAs also have the advantage of helping employees develop more awareness of the cost of health care. Just as when withdrawing funds from any type of savings account, each time employees contemplate using the HRA to pay for a medical expense they’re faced with considering whether they’re meeting the medical expense in the most cost-effective way possible. Such thinking is an incentive to take the steps necessary to make informed, cost-conscious health care spending decisions. And, since HRA funds carry over year to year (and are not forfeited, such as are unused amounts left in Health Care Flexible Spending Accounts), employees have additional reasons to be careful about how they spend HRA money. By design, however, an employer can limit the carry-over feature of the HRA and decide whether to make unused funds available for retirees to use.

HRAs offer the opportunity to provide a cost-defined, tax-advantaged health benefit that can help employees become more informed, savvy health care consumers. Of the many options employers have to choose from in providing health benefits to employees, HRAs are an attractive one to consider. Call our office today to find out in HRAs make sense for your organization.

EMERGENCY PLANNING: ACCOMMODATE YOUR DISABLED WORKERS

By Risk Management Bulletin

Emergency preparedness is essential for all of your employees – but especially for those with disabilities.

Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) help orchestrate employer and employee actions, including evacuations, during a workplace emergency. An employer must have an EAP for its facilities whenever a specific OSHA standard mandates one for example, at any facility that requires workers to evacuate after a fire alarm. Employers at facilities with fixed extinguishing systems and fire detection systems must also develop an EAP. What’s more, OSHA strongly recommends that all businesses have an EAP.

Your EAP must include these elements:

  • A means of reporting fires and other emergencies
  • Evacuation procedures and emergency exit route assignments
  • Procedures for employees who remain to operate critical facility operations before they evacuate
  • A method of accounting for all employees after the completion of emergency evacuation
  • Rescue and medical duties for those employees who are to perform them
  • Names and/or job titles of people to contact for further information or explanation of duties under the plan

Employers covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) who are required or who choose to adopt EAPs must also include procedures for evacuating people with disabilities. Even employers without EAPs should address emergency evacuation for employees with disabilities as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

The California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services offers these disaster preparedness tips for disabled individuals:

  • Set up a disabled worker’s job area so that they can quickly get under a sturdy desk, table, or other safe place for protection; this will be essential during an earthquake or explosion.
  • Identify doorways behind which the worker can take cover.
  • When practicing emergency exit drills, include any special assistance a disabled worker might require; at least two other workers should be familiar with the disabled worker’s special needs, including how to operate any equipment the person uses and the location of emergency supplies.
  • Have workers with disabilities keep a list of medications, allergies, special equipment, names and numbers of doctors, pharmacists, and family members with them at all times.
  • Make sure that these workers keep extra medication with their emergency supplies.
  • Require mobility-impaired workers to have walking aids close by at all times.

WINTER WORK CLOTHES BRRR-ING DOWN THE RISK OF COLD-RELATED INJURIES

By Risk Management Bulletin

For the rest of the winter, many employees will need to work briefly or for sustained periods in cold weather — leaving them vulnerable to special hazards.

The two main health dangers from overexposure to cold are frostbite and hypothermia. Frostbite occurs when body tissues freeze; it usually affects fingers, toes, nose, cheeks, and ears. Frostbite can cause permanent tissue damage and loss of movement in affected parts. Hypothermia results from exposure to cold, which plunges body temperatures dangerously low. Hypothermia can also occur in above-freezing temperatures when it’s windy, or when a person is exhausted or wearing wet clothes. Untreated, it can lead to unconsciousness and death.

Wearing the right clothing is essential for workers to protect themselves against cold weather and to prevent heat loss. Canada’s largest union, the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), recommends that workers wear:

  • Undergarments – A cotton shirt and shorts under thermal underwear (preferably a two-piece style). To avoid constricting blood vessels, the fit should be loose.
  • Socks – Should be woolen, high, and encourage evaporation of sweat. Stretch socks restrict circulation.
  • Pants – Either wool or quilted pants or lined thermal types. Pants should be roomy and worn with suspenders rather than a belt, which are constricting.
  • Boots – Should be felt-lined, rubber bottomed, and leather topped, with removable insoles. Footwear should be waterproof and reach high up the leg.
  • Shirt – Wool (cotton or synthetic for people allergic to wool) over underwear tops and suspenders. To aid ventilation, the shirttail should be worn outside the pants.
  • Head covers – Wool knit caps or hat liners that extend down the back of the neck. A balaclava (ski mask) provides further face protection.
  • Face masks – For workers who can’t afford reduced vision on the job. Workers should remove facemasks periodically to check for frostbite.
  • Gloves and mittens – Mittens offer the best protection, but limit finger movement. On very cold days, it’s wise to carry both.

GOOD (WORKPLACE) HOUSEKEEPING MAKES SENSE

By Risk Management Bulletin

In all too many workplaces, good housekeeping tends to fall at the end of the priority list for both management and employees. However, this creates a problem because there’s a direct correlation between a clean, neat, well-organized workplace and a safe healthy one.

Good, safe housekeeping doesn’t just happen. Nor is it something that you can do once a month and forget about. You and your employees must tackle a daily mission with energy, focus, and purpose. You have to plan for it, involve employees in it, and sustain it. Nevertheless, if you do, the rewards will be substantial: Fewer accidents, greater productivity, and a more pleasant, healthy place for all to work.

Poor housekeeping can frequently contribute to accidents by hiding hazards that cause injuries, according to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety (CCOHS). If the sight of paper, debris, clutter, and spills is accepted as normal, then other, more serious health and safety hazards might be taken for granted.

For employees to become willing and enthusiastic supporters of the program, they need to understand that housekeeping duties, rather than being bothersome chores (which is probably the way most of them think of them now), are fundamental to their own safety and health. Make housekeeping a part of everyone’s job: No matter what other tasks employees perform, each of them should also take responsibility for keeping the workplace clean, organized, and safe.

Be sure to motivate workers by using such reminders as regular safety meetings, signs, posters, and incentives, together with performance credits for housekeeping duties. Set aside daily times for these tasks and supervise employees closely.

To maintain a safe workplace, housekeeping really has to become a habit. That’s where checklists come in. These lists should include:

  • Workstations
  • Floors, aisles, stairways
  • Cords, cables, hoses, cartons, and other tripping hazards
  • Dust, dirt, and grease
  • Clutter, scrap, and trash
  • Tools and equipment
  • Storage areas
  • Chemicals
  • Flammable and combustible materials
  • Waste disposal
  • Work surfaces
  • Spills
  • Lighting
  • Entry and exit areas

CONGRESS EXTENDS COBRA SUBSIDIES

By Your Employee Matters

Congress has extended the federal subsidy for COBRA Health insurance premiums for employees who are terminated involuntarily. The nine-month, 65% premium subsidy is extended by six months, to a total of 15 months.

The subsidy now is available to those who involuntarily lose their jobs through February 28, 2010. The legislation also provides an additional six months of subsidized coverage for beneficiaries whose initial nine-month COBRA premium subsidy has run out. In addition, the legislation gives beneficiaries whose subsidy ran out, and who did not pay the full premium, a second chance to opt for coverage. For example, a beneficiary whose nine months of subsidized coverage ran out November 30, and who did not pay the regular unsubsidized December 2009 premium, can pay the 35% premium share in January 2010 and receive coverage for December. The legislation requires employers to notify current COBRA beneficiaries and future beneficiaries of the new 15-month premium subsidy.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORKERS TO REPORT, AND EMPLOYERS TO RECORD, INJURIES AND ILLNESSES

By Your Employee Matters

Here’s an important excerpt from a recent GAO report on OSHA audits that addresses concerns about disincentives for reporting injuries (Italics added):

“Occupational safety and health stakeholders we interviewed and occupational health practitioners we surveyed told us that primary factors affecting the accuracy of injury and illness data include disincentives that affect workers’ decisions to report work-related injuries and illnesses and employers’ decisions to record them. Stakeholders most often cited workers’ fear of job loss and other disciplinary actions as disincentives that can affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. Occupational health practitioners concurred: 67% reported observing worker fear of disciplinary action for reporting an injury or illness, and 46% said that this fear of disciplinary action has at least a minor impact on the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness records. Workers’ fear of disciplinary actions might be compounded by policies at some worksites that require workers to undergo mandatory drug testing following incidents resulting in reported injuries or illnesses, regardless of any evidence of drug use. Several labor representatives described mandatory drug testing policies as a disincentive that affects workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, and 67% of health practitioners reported they were aware of this practice at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008.

“Stakeholders also said employers’ safety incentive programs can serve as disincentives for workers reporting injuries and illnesses. These programs reward workers when their worksites have few recordable injuries or illnesses. One-half of the health practitioners who responded to our survey reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008. Safety incentive programs are designed to promote safe behavior by workers; and 72% of health practitioners reported that these programs motivate workers to work in a safe manner. However, some stakeholders said these programs could discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses; more than three-quarters of health practitioners said they believed workers sometimes avoid reporting work-related injuries and illnesses as a result. Stakeholders also said that in addition to missing the chance to win prizes for themselves, workers who report injuries and illnesses might risk ruining their coworkers’ chances of winning such prizes.

“Disincentives that discourage workers from reporting and employers from recording injuries and illnesses might also result in pressure on occupational health practitioners to treat workers in a manner that avoids the OSHA requirement to record injuries and illnesses. From our survey, we found that more than one-third of health practitioners were asked by company officials or workers to provide treatment that resulted in an injury or illness not being recorded, but also was not sufficient to treat the injury or illness properly. For example, in some cases, practitioners stated that employers might seek out alternative diagnoses if the initial diagnosis would result in a recordable injury or illness. One practitioner said that an injured worker’s manager took the worker to multiple providers until the manager found one who would certify that treatment of the injury required only first aid, which is not a recordable injury. More than half (53%) of the health practitioners reported that they experienced pressure from company officials to downplay injuries or illnesses, and 47% reported that they experienced this pressure from workers. Further, 44% of health practitioners stated that this pressure had at least a minor impact on whether injuries and illnesses were accurately recorded, and 15% reported it had a major impact. In some cases, this pressure might be related to the employers’ use of incentive programs. Of those experiencing pressure from workers, 61% reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers. In comparison, among the practitioners who reported not experiencing pressure from workers in 2008, 41% reported being aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers.

“Various disincentives might also discourage employers from recording workers’ injuries and illnesses. Stakeholders told us employers are concerned about the impact of higher injury and illness rates on their Workers Compensation costs. Several researchers and labor representatives said that because employers’ Workers Compensation premiums increase with higher injury and illness rates, employers might be reluctant to record injuries and illnesses. They also said businesses sometimes hire independent contractors to avoid the requirement to record workers’ injuries and illnesses because they are not required to record them for self-employed individuals. Stakeholders also told us employers might not record injuries and illnesses because having high injury and illness rates can affect their ability to compete for contracts for new work. The injury and illness rate for worksites in certain industries, such as construction, affects some employers’ competitiveness in bidding on the same work.

“An OSHA official told us that OSHA does not have an official policy on incentive programs or practices that might affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, but it has authority under the OSH Act to discourage inaccurate reporting by employers. The official stated that, under a planned National Emphasis Program, OSHA will explore the possible impact that incentive programs have on workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. To address disincentives that might affect employers’ decisions to accurately record injuries and illnesses, the official stated that OSHA can issue citations or fine employers when recordkeeping violations are found.”

Lessons to be learned:

  • There are inherent pressures not to report injuries or to minimize their scope.
  • Employees are afraid of losing jobs, receiving discipline, or being drug tested (even where drug use plays no part in causation).
  • Safety programs designed to reduce injuries, lost time on the job, and insurance costs can create a disincentive for reporting injuries.
  • These factors also affect managers and health care providers.
  • OSHA will be more vigilant in exploring how employees might be reluctant to report injuries at the workplace.
  • Keep these lessons in mind when designing and implementing injury-reporting systems.

Read the entire report here.

CONGRESS EXTENDS COBRA SUBSIDIES

By Your Employee Matters

Congress has extended the federal subsidy for COBRA Health insurance premiums for employees who are terminated involuntarily. The nine-month, 65% premium subsidy is extended by six months, to a total of 15 months.

The subsidy now is available to those who involuntarily lose their jobs through February 28, 2010. The legislation also provides an additional six months of subsidized coverage for beneficiaries whose initial nine-month COBRA premium subsidy has run out. In addition, the legislation gives beneficiaries whose subsidy ran out, and who did not pay the full premium, a second chance to opt for coverage. For example, a beneficiary whose nine months of subsidized coverage ran out November 30, and who did not pay the regular unsubsidized December 2009 premium, can pay the 35% premium share in January 2010 and receive coverage for December. The legislation requires employers to notify current COBRA beneficiaries and future beneficiaries of the new 15-month premium subsidy.

DISINCENTIVES FOR WORKERS TO REPORT, AND EMPLOYERS TO RECORD, INJURIES AND ILLNESSES

By Your Employee Matters

Here’s an important excerpt from a recent GAO report on OSHA audits that addresses concerns about disincentives for reporting injuries (Italics added):

“Occupational safety and health stakeholders we interviewed and occupational health practitioners we surveyed told us that primary factors affecting the accuracy of injury and illness data include disincentives that affect workers’ decisions to report work-related injuries and illnesses and employers’ decisions to record them. Stakeholders most often cited workers’ fear of job loss and other disciplinary actions as disincentives that can affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. Occupational health practitioners concurred: 67% reported observing worker fear of disciplinary action for reporting an injury or illness, and 46% said that this fear of disciplinary action has at least a minor impact on the accuracy of employers’ injury and illness records. Workers’ fear of disciplinary actions might be compounded by policies at some worksites that require workers to undergo mandatory drug testing following incidents resulting in reported injuries or illnesses, regardless of any evidence of drug use. Several labor representatives described mandatory drug testing policies as a disincentive that affects workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, and 67% of health practitioners reported they were aware of this practice at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008.

“Stakeholders also said employers’ safety incentive programs can serve as disincentives for workers reporting injuries and illnesses. These programs reward workers when their worksites have few recordable injuries or illnesses. One-half of the health practitioners who responded to our survey reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers in 2008. Safety incentive programs are designed to promote safe behavior by workers; and 72% of health practitioners reported that these programs motivate workers to work in a safe manner. However, some stakeholders said these programs could discourage workers from reporting injuries and illnesses; more than three-quarters of health practitioners said they believed workers sometimes avoid reporting work-related injuries and illnesses as a result. Stakeholders also said that in addition to missing the chance to win prizes for themselves, workers who report injuries and illnesses might risk ruining their coworkers’ chances of winning such prizes.

“Disincentives that discourage workers from reporting and employers from recording injuries and illnesses might also result in pressure on occupational health practitioners to treat workers in a manner that avoids the OSHA requirement to record injuries and illnesses. From our survey, we found that more than one-third of health practitioners were asked by company officials or workers to provide treatment that resulted in an injury or illness not being recorded, but also was not sufficient to treat the injury or illness properly. For example, in some cases, practitioners stated that employers might seek out alternative diagnoses if the initial diagnosis would result in a recordable injury or illness. One practitioner said that an injured worker’s manager took the worker to multiple providers until the manager found one who would certify that treatment of the injury required only first aid, which is not a recordable injury. More than half (53%) of the health practitioners reported that they experienced pressure from company officials to downplay injuries or illnesses, and 47% reported that they experienced this pressure from workers. Further, 44% of health practitioners stated that this pressure had at least a minor impact on whether injuries and illnesses were accurately recorded, and 15% reported it had a major impact. In some cases, this pressure might be related to the employers’ use of incentive programs. Of those experiencing pressure from workers, 61% reported they were aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers. In comparison, among the practitioners who reported not experiencing pressure from workers in 2008, 41% reported being aware of incentive programs at the worksites where they treated workers.

“Various disincentives might also discourage employers from recording workers’ injuries and illnesses. Stakeholders told us employers are concerned about the impact of higher injury and illness rates on their Workers Compensation costs. Several researchers and labor representatives said that because employers’ Workers Compensation premiums increase with higher injury and illness rates, employers might be reluctant to record injuries and illnesses. They also said businesses sometimes hire independent contractors to avoid the requirement to record workers’ injuries and illnesses because they are not required to record them for self-employed individuals. Stakeholders also told us employers might not record injuries and illnesses because having high injury and illness rates can affect their ability to compete for contracts for new work. The injury and illness rate for worksites in certain industries, such as construction, affects some employers’ competitiveness in bidding on the same work.

“An OSHA official told us that OSHA does not have an official policy on incentive programs or practices that might affect workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses, but it has authority under the OSH Act to discourage inaccurate reporting by employers. The official stated that, under a planned National Emphasis Program, OSHA will explore the possible impact that incentive programs have on workers’ decisions to report injuries and illnesses. To address disincentives that might affect employers’ decisions to accurately record injuries and illnesses, the official stated that OSHA can issue citations or fine employers when recordkeeping violations are found.”

Lessons to be learned:

  • There are inherent pressures not to report injuries or to minimize their scope.
  • Employees are afraid of losing jobs, receiving discipline, or being drug tested (even where drug use plays no part in causation).
  • Safety programs designed to reduce injuries, lost time on the job, and insurance costs can create a disincentive for reporting injuries.
  • These factors also affect managers and health care providers.
  • OSHA will be more vigilant in exploring how employees might be reluctant to report injuries at the workplace.
  • Keep these lessons in mind when designing and implementing injury-reporting systems.

Read the entire report here.

WOMEN AT WORK

By Your Employee Matters

Back in October 2009, Time magazine ran a special report on women. A number of the statistics in this report deserve a closer look:

  • More women think that men resent women who have power than is the fact. Nearly seven in ten (69%) of the women surveyed felt that men resented women who have greater power than they have; in reality, only 49% of men did (yes, half the guys out there have difficulty with powerful women, but they’ll have no choice but to get over it).
  • More than four in five (84%) respondents believe that businesses have not done enough to address the needs of modern families. Given that women are roughly half of the workforce, providing a family-friendly work environment can help to attract and retain employees. Job sharing, flexibility, more paid time off, and day care options are all factors women look for when entering the workforce.
  • More men (60%) than women (50%) are convinced that there are no longer any barriers to women’s advancement in the workplace. You can only imagine which women are more successful; those who believe their success lies entirely in their own hands, or those who believe that somehow there remain barriers to their advancement. Of course, this might depend on the type of industry they’re in.
  • Interestingly, more women felt that female bosses are harder to work for than male bosses (45% versus 29%) are. This raises the question: Do women feel they have to be tougher than men to be successful managers?
  • Most women (84%) believe they are just as committed to their jobs as women who do not have children. Interestingly, more women disagree that it’s difficult for them to establish a warm and secure relationship with her children if they work than do men.
  • More women (52%) than men (27%) believe that women bear the primary responsibility of taking care of sick or elderly parents. Many women are “sandwiched” between kids and parents.
  • The most important issues for women in general are health (96%), self-sufficiency (85%), financial security (81%), and job fulfillment (72%).

What does this data mean for employers? Answer: If you want to attract women to your workforce, create the flexibility that allows them to take care of children and elderly parents, including more paid time off and better day care options.