Noted work comp attorney Jon Gelman has an excellent post on one of the heretofore lesser known provisions of the Health Reform bill – the ‘Libby Care’ amendment. A quick read may lead some to think that the Feds are just about ready to take over handling of occupational diseases.
The provision Gelman is referring to is in Section 10323, Medicare Coverage for Individuals Exposed to Environmental Health Hazards, 2009 Cong US HR 3590, [this takes you to the entire bill and is a long download, the relevant Amendment is on page 111th Congress, 1st Session (December 31, 2009).
A more careful read produces a somewhat different conclusion; this looks to be a one-time fix to a specific ‘problem’. That’s not to say that the work comp industry has done a good, or even passable, job in addressing occupational disease, but the Libby Care Amendment isn’t an attempt to Federalize management and treatment of occupational disease. Color me a cynic if you will, but my sense is the Manager’s Amendment isn’t so much the ‘camel’s nose under the tent’ as a political move by Sen Baucus (D MT) to curry favor and win votes; the Amendment is specific to an environmental disaster in Libby, Montana.
Here’s why.
1. The Amendment requires a site be designated a “Public Health Emergency” by the Secretary of HHS. To date, Libby is the only site so designated.
2. The provision covers care for all affected residents and employees, not just workers. This is clearly far beyond ‘occupational’ and is much more of a public health issue than a work comp one.
3. Care is to be delivered through the Medicare system. This will require allocation of additional funding for each new site, something a cash-strapped CMS is unlikely to encourage.
I’d encourage readers to review Gelman’s piece in its entirety; Jon knows of what he writes and has done a credible job in identifying and analyzing this important issue.
What does this mean for you?
Likely increased attention for occupational disease, and over time, a push by CMS to ensure those responsible pay for the associated cost.
Insight, analysis & opinion from Joe Paduda