After poring over five years of claims data from the Louisiana Workers’ Comp Corp., a nonprofit mutual insurance company, researchers at John Hopkins School of Medicine found that only 3.7% of physicians accounted for 72% of workers’ comp costs in the state.

These physicians were termed cost-intensive providers (CIPs).

Sure, most of you already knew some workers “doctor shop” — when an injured employee seeks out a doctor whose diagnosis will extend comp benefits — but you probably didn’t know the effects were this bad.

Among the findings about CIPs:

• Their average claim total was more than four times higher than other docs ($46,000 v. $11,000)
• Their claims took more than twice as long to settle (697 days v. 278), and
• 31% of CIPs total claims costs were more than $50,000 compared to just 13% for other docs.

Note: The majority of CIPs incurring high costs were involved in pain management.

The study was published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

The true story is related by Anita Bruzzese, who writes about workplace issues for USA Today and is the author of 45 Things You Do That Drive Your Boss Crazy … and How to Avoid Them.

In the middle a job interview with an HR director, the woman in the story jumped up, said, “Excuse me,” grabbed a waste basket and puked in it.

Now here’s where it gets even more interesting.

After throwing up, the woman composed herself and apologized — but not for puking. Instead, she  said she was sorry she was unaware of her illness before coming in. And had she been aware, she would have canceled rather than risk spreading illness to the interviewer’s workplace.

She then asked if she could reschedule the interview.

The interviewer said OK, and the woman eventually met with the hiring manager, who gave her the job.

Why’d she get the job?

Managers always say they’re looking for people who know how to react in, and recover from, a difficult situation. This was an actual case where someone did it — including expressing her concern for others who might be exposed to the illness.

There’s a lesson in there for applicants and interviewers.

Members of the executive suite rarely have much time to spare, making it critical that you make your point fast.

Here’s a three-step strategy you can use to consistently grab execs’ attention quickly and garner a budgetary thumbs up:

Step 1: Stress the big-picture strategy

It’s essential to begin by showing the top brass that you’re thinking strategically about adding to the company’s bottom line.

One way: Research wellness programs companies similar to yours have used, and provide actual figures on how much they’ve saved on health care as a result of their wellness initiatives.

Step 2: Focus on the quick returns

The bottom-line concern of the top brass is just that: the bottom line.

So make sure you have solid numbers on when your new program will start to see a return on the company’s investment.

Example: If you’re proposing an investment in smoking cessation, provide research showing how companies with similar programs are seeing fewer medical claims in year one.

Step 3: Keep their attention

C-level execs usually aren’t all that interested in the small details of the program — plan design, administration issues, etc.

To keep their interest, only tell them the highlights of your plans.

Example: Tell them that you’ll reward wellness participants — but leave out details like who’ll keep track of those who participate.

Question:
How can we defend against a situation where we: a) accommodate a disabled employee; b) risk that the disability will get worse as a result of working and we’ll end up with a workers compensation claim?

Can we deny the accommodation based on the belief that the disability will worsen as a result of the person’s continuing to work?

Answer:
With one exception, you usually can’t deny an accommodation based on the belief that work in general will worsen the condition and lead to a comp claim, explains attorney Adele Abrams, who specializes in ADA compliance.

The exception: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a company that denied employment to a worker whose disability would have worsened as a result of exposure to chemicals common in the company’s factory.

So, if you can show a specific danger to the employee, that makes for a stronger case for denial.

1. How much time will the training take?

If you have an array of topics to cover, it’s best to only cover one or two per session to avoid overloading employees with too much info.

Tip: Set aside time at the end of each session so that employees can ask questions that’ll help the info sink in.

2. Should I create small groups or one-size-fits-all sessions?

It’s rare to find one type of training that’ll work for everyone.

When deciding between small sessions or larger ones, it’s important to keep in mind that smaller, more intimate sessions tend to help people connect better.

3. What type of medium should I use?

Not sure whether to go with a PowerPoint presentation or to take a more unconventional approach?

Consider switching between several different mediums (group discussions, computer training, etc.). It’ll keep people from thinking they’ve “been there, done that” and switching off during training sessions.

4. What will managers be asked?

Mangers are the first line of defense when it comes to answering employees’ questions.

Do they know enough to be able to answer any questions that come their way from employees? Test them to find out.

Tell us in the Comments Box below what you do to help benefits info sink in with employees.

General manager Mike Andrews gathered up his paperwork as he spoke: “So, Jen, you’ll be sure to take care of everything involving Len Barker’s termination?”

“Sure, if that’s the decision you’ve made,” answered Jen Durso, the HR manager. “I would like to raise one issue before we proceed.”

“Go ahead, please,” Mike encouraged her.

“This termination is going to come less than 60 days after Len complained to the state about safety problems in the warehouse,” Jen noted. “That could look fishy.”

“Oh, that,” Mike nodded. “We did a thorough investigation about Len’s complaint. Even had an outside guy come in and look at it. We got a clean bill of health on that – no violation.”

“That’s true enough,” Jen agreed. “Still, it could look as if we’re firing Len because he complained about a safety issue.”

“As I see it,” Mike broke in, “there was no violation and we’re terminating Len clearly for performance, not the complaint.”

When Len was terminated, he filed a lawsuit charging the company acted out of retaliation for his safety-violation complaint. The company noted there was no violation and asked a judge to throw the case out of court. Did the company win?

The decision

No. The judge refused the company’s request to throw the case out and allowed it to go to trial – and a likely hefty cash settlement negotiated outside the courtroom.

The judge said the firing indeed looked suspicious, coming on the heels of Len’s complaint about a safety violation. When it looks suspicious, it goes to trial.

What about the fact that Len’s complaint ended up being nothing more than that – a complaint – and the company had committed no violation? Doesn’t matter, the judge explained. The employee doesn’t have to prove the validity of his complaint to show there was retaliation. He complained, and he got fired. Let a jury decide if one and one equal two.

One more thing, the judge noted: Safety complaints involve matters of “public policy” since possible violations affect more than just the single employee. As such, those complaints – even more than others – fall under special legal protections.

Important supporting docs
When an employee complains about something as serious as safety and then gets fired, your managers have to be certain to have the right documentation. There’s not much you can do to stop an employee who’s bent on suing, but you can prepare a good defense.

Cite: Kohrt v. MidAmerican Energy Co.

A whopping 71% of employers say they expect higher healthcare costs in general if reform makes it out of Congress, according to a survey by the National Business Group on Health.

Other findings:

• 69% of employers say it’ll boost the cost of their benefits programs, and
• 35% feel it’ll lead to fewer companies providing subsidized coverage.

Employees aren’t happy about it, either

Workers, too, are giving federal healthcare reform the cold shoulder.

According to a second survey by Towers Watson, employees feel reform would:

• result in higher benefit costs (67%)
• reduce available benefits (54%), and
• lower the quality of care (53%).

What’s your stance on federal healthcare reform? Let us know in the Comments Box below.

Spurred by reports that the E-Verify system has glaring holes (see ), lawmakers are looking at bills that would require all workers to produce ID cards that verify eligibility to work in the United States. The cards would have photo IDs and some sort of biometric info, such as a fingerprint.

Some particulars of the bill:

• People currently employed wouldn’t be required to obtain a card unless they switch jobs.
• Requirements would start with designated industries  that rely heavily on illegal immigrants in their work force.
• Enforcement eventually would be phased in for all worker in all industries.

But it would eventually reach tens of millions of Americans, including citizens and immigrants, who are holding jobs legally.

What chance does such a bill have to become law? Congress is hearing a bunch of complaints that could become insurmountable obstacles:

• Cost and inconvenience. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has raised concerns about the costs to employers and potential difficulty checking the biometrics. Card scanners would cost employers between $700 and $800. The bill’s proponents say small employers could be exempt from purchasing scanners and instead send applicants to government offices.
• The “creepy factor.” Getting Americans to latch on to the idea of a scannable ID card is a tough sell. Privacy advocates won’t buy in.
• Amnesty. Some in Congress want to tie approval of a card system to amnesty for illegal workers, who would be required to turn themselves in an obtain an ID card. The word “amnesty” tends to lead to a loss of support for any type of immigration bill.

Loss of privacy is also a primary concern of those who fear the card will develop into a national identification system able to track Americans.

“We’re not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We’re also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification,” said Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Department of Labor (DOL) has gone paperless this year, and all forms for the 2009 plan year must be filed electronically — no exceptions.

To help employers, the DOL has just launched its EFAST2 online filing system — and it’s ready to accept electronic submissions of Form 5500 and Form 5500-SF.

But there’s the rub: Using it requires an e-mail account, which according to recent reports, 20%-28% of small business owners (mostly older owners) still don’t have — leaving them vulnerable to steep fines.

Consider the statistics from a Society of Human Resource Management survey on relocation expenses:

• 17% of respondees said they had eliminated corporate-relocation programs entirely.
• 25% froze their corporate-relocation programs.
• 58% reduced their corporate-relocation programs.

Another trend: A lot of companies are paying a flat amount for relocation — often capped at $10,000. Another changing trend. Many companies used to have mortgage-reimbursement programs for relocating new hires who had to take a financial hit on the sale of a home. That one’s going away or under strict caps. The few companies still doing it are limiting mortgage help to $10,000 to $20,000, and that’s usually only for high corporate jobs or hard-to-fill positions.