ProPublica and NPR have a new investigative report out on Opt-Out, the nascent industry seeking to allow employers to “opt-out” of workers comp. Perhaps more accurately, PP/NPR focused on one individual in the Opt-Out industry, concentrating their attention on Bill Minick, his company, and their clients and supporters.
As one who has fiercely criticized ProPublica and NPR for their slipshod, inaccurate, and biased reporting on workers comp, I am quite skeptical about their work. Even after lengthy conversations with myself and other work comp experts, even after we sent numerous documents, studies, and papers refuting their many errors, even after sharing information with them about the myriad abuses of the system by profiteering docs and shady physician dispensing companies and surgery mills, these two refused to acknowledge those errors, expand their coverage, and correct their “reporting”.
Unfortunately, this taints not only their work, but the work of ProPublica as well. Grabell and Berkes are the lead authors on this new piece on opt-out, which makes me very skeptical.
I’d note that the tone of their writing remains hyper-critical, and while there are ample opportunities to give credit where it is due, Grabell and Berkes seem averse to reporting on any positive aspects of Opt Out – giving short shrift to the Texas Association of Responsible Nonsubscribers, (TXANS) even though that group is the largest association of non-subscribers in the state and nation. However, overall the piece does appear more balanced than their earlier hack-job on workers’ comp.
I do find it ironic that workers comp – an industry/benefit system pilloried by Grabell and Berkes – is portrayed by those two worthies as preferable to Opt Out.
There are big problems with opt-out; employers with minimal coverage protected by LLC status for one; the poorly-worded definition of “injury”, unrealistic reporting requirements, and failure to protect claimants from discharge are just a few. But perhaps the biggest is the total lack of meaningful regulation; in Texas and Oklahoma, employers have wide discretion as to what their plan covers and doesn’t, coverage limits, injury definitions, settlement conditions, and redress.
There are many good employers using opt-out as a means to avoid the worst of the work comp environment; claims that drag on forever, plaintiff attorneys seeking ever more care to jack up settlements, diagnoses that migrate seemingly at will. So let’s not tar every non-subscriber with the same dirty brush.
I fully understand employers’ frustration with the work comp “system”; I also know there are many injured workers who are treated poorly by that “system”. There are problems aplenty on both sides.
The solution is NOT opt-out. Rather we should getting employers to pay enough in taxes to fund adequate regulatory resources; promote speedy and clinically-sound, independent resolution of medical and disability disputes; and promulgate real evidence-based clinical guidelines.
What does this mean for you?
For every problem, there is a resolution that is quick, cheap, and wrong. Opt out is a great example.
Opt-out by Claimants is, in my view, intended to be a threat to employers in which they will face large jury verdicts and heightened defense/expense costs if they won’t put up with pro-labor WC adjudication of claims.
I once drank the kool-aid on opt-out, but not anymore…David De’s reporting and that of ProPublica/NPR suggests that opt-out is the way back to the 19th and early 20th century industrial revolution days of killed or maimed workers without any recourse.
Plain and simple, the folks behind opt-out can’t accept workers getting just compensation for their injuries and getting proper medical care. It goes against the laissez-faire, free-market system they and their political allies have in the marketplace, and we know from American history that the marketplace does not give a fig about the health, safety and welfare of workers.
“Capital is reckless of the health or length of life of the laborer, unless under compulsion from society.”
Karl Marx
There is a lot of rhetoric here from parties whose interests are conflicted. It seems someone should do a controled study on similarly situtated employees in and out of opt out to see how they actually did.
There is a lot of rhetoric here from parties whose interests are conflicted. It seems someone should do a control study on similarly situtated employees in and out of opt out to see how they actually did.