Frank is a highly experienced work comp broker, consultant and educator who is as subtle as a tank.

A vocal and energetic advocate for his employer clients, he is nonetheless far from reluctant to challenge those clients to think creatively, differently, intelligently; to not just accept what carriers, TPAs brokers and vendors report but to dig down to see the real picture.

Because it’s what underlies those relationships that drives results for patients and employers.  The tangled web of financial deals based on percentage-of-savings charges; fee-splitting; vendor “rebates” and other pay-to-play vehicles can and does influence behavior and incentivize parties in ways that may not be in the patients’ or employers’ best interest.

Frank’s persistent and loud, to the point that some groups and on-line entities have banned him from their conversations.  While those groups are entirely within their rights to do so I’d suggest that all of us are far better off hearing from people like Frank than avoiding the conversation.  His intentions, values, and ethics are unquestioned.  His tireless advocacy for clients and stakeholders to do the right thing is unequivocal.

If you don’t like what you’re hearing, perhaps you should ask yourself why you’re uncomfortable with what he has to say.  While Frank’s irreverence and constant vocal challenging of the status quo has made him a pariah in certain work comp circles that is unfortunate indeed – because his message is dead on.

Sometimes the volume and stridency of the message can turn people off.  I get that.  I also get that many of us have been trying for years to highlight the counter-productive relationships that yield little benefit to the real stakeholders.  Sometimes you need to open the window and yell.

What does this mean for you?

The industry not only needs more Frank Pennachios, it also needs to realize that despite what you may think of the methods, the message is absolutely right. 

It’s not just ACA; the new Administration’s changes to OSHA, the Department of Labor, immigration policy, trade, and myriad other programs and policies will significantly affect workers’ comp.

This is the first of an occasional look at these “Other Effects”.

Farm workers

California’s produce growers are concerned that most of their field workers will be deported, potentially leaving billions of dollars rotting in their fields.  While others argue that farmers should not be employing undocumented workers, the farmers, most of whom appear to have voted for Trump, disagree:

“If you only have legal labor, certain parts of this industry and this region will not exist,” said Harold McClarty, a fourth-generation farmer in Kingsburg whose operation grows, packs and ships peaches, plums and grapes throughout the country. “If we sent all these people back, it would be a total disaster.”

Implication – if deportations begin, farmers will have to scramble to find legal residents to replace the 70% of current workers who are undocumented.  Labor costs will go up, and so will workers’ comp premiums.  Expect claims to rise as well, as the field work is very strenuous physical labor which most new workers will be unaccustomed to.

Of course, it’s illegal for those farmers to employ undocumented workers in the first place, so their lobbying efforts – intended to convince the President to not do what he said he would do – amount to asking the Administration to not enforce laws currently on the books requiring farmers to comply with the E-Verify program.

What does this mean for you?

The President is doing what he said he would, surprising some of his supporters and delighting others.

One of the most dangerous jobs in America is power line maintenance.

Over 330 people were killed last year due to falls and electrocution while working on power lines, thousands more were injured. Now one energy company is employing sophisticated drones to monitor power lines, allowing workers to trade the sometimes-scary task of climbing way up a swaying tower in possibly lousy weather to check out a junction for a ground-based drone control and monitoring job.

According to an AES exec; 

“We find that using drones, we can reduce the number of hazardous hours that it takes to do certain types of maintenance. And we can also enhance the efficiency of the business.”

And AES is not just focused on aerial drones to reduce occupational risks.  It recently announced a program seeking unmanned methods of evaluating energy production and transmission equipment.  The risk here is intense heat; when something goes awry it often takes considerable time for the site to cool down enough for a human to enter and figure out what’s happened.  AES is looking for ways to use “unmanned technology” to get in quickly, assess the problem, and fix it.

measure is the company working with AES; they’re deep into multiple ways to use drones in heavy industry. For example…

• shipboard workers using drones to check on container stability, possible fuel leaks, wiring and hoses
• firefighters using drones heat-mapping capabilities to identify hotspots, vulnerable areas, trapped people
• tower workers using drones to keep nesting birds at bay

What does this mean for you?

Fewer accidents, lower risks for workers, reduced worker’s comp premiums. 

And this is just the start.

Ok, I’m biased. But there’s no question Michelle Buckman is one of the really good – and very talented – people in the industry.

Not only is Michelle a fellow Syracuse University grad, she’s also COO at MedRisk, a long-time HSA consulting client.

Michelle started out in MedRisk’s marketing department before she moved into operations. That’s where she made her mark – and continues to do so. A little history is needed here.

Responding to customer concerns, MedRisk decided to internalize ALL customer-facing functions just after Michele joined the company. While Michelle, a graduate of Syracuse’ famed Newhouse School of Public Communications, didn’t have much in the way of formal business training, she most certainly understood interpersonal relations and communications. She put that expertise to good use, building a department with 165 highly trained and very motivated college graduates focused solely on helping each and every patient, provider, employer, adjuster, and case manager they work with. (Lots more detail on this here.)

Michelle worked very closely with IT under Vic Pytleski to develop applications, programs, and technology that would enable quick access to lots of information – and a way to report and monitor activity critical to continually improving results.

Regrettable Turnover (losing people you’d like to keep) among MedRisk’s Customer Advocates is 9 percent annually.

9 percent.

After the Customer Advocacy Program went into effect, duration of PT care decreased 15 percent.

Michelle and her colleagues have built a department staffed with highly trained, well paid, happy employees doing a really good job and materially improving results.

And all these folks are located here – in Pennsylvania, to be precise. Instead of “keeping expenses low” by outsourcing or offshoring jobs, Michelle et al viewed this from the customer’s perspective.  By approaching it from that angle, they were able to focus on what’s most important to any company – serving each and every customer as well as you possibly can.

The focus is NOT on “how can we squeeze another nickel out of operations?” but rather “what can we do better to make our customers’ lives easier and our patients healthier?”

That focus was the easy part. The hard part is to operationalize it, to make it real, to keep that tight focus, to recruit, train, incentivize, motivate, measure, and manage the people who make it work. It’s easy for consultants (and I am one) to talk about what organizations need to do.

It’s a whole different thing to actually do it – and not only keep it going year after year, but to continue improving.

What does this mean for you?

What’s really needed is not a degree or experience or training, it is a deep understanding of what’s important, and the passion and dedication and persistence to deliver.

Former CEO John Plotkin should not have been fired by SAIF, Oregon’s state workers’ comp fund.  That’s the ruling by a Marion County Oregon Judge, and led to SAIF’s Board of Directors offering Plotkin $1.7 million as a settlement.

It isn’t clear if Plotkin has agreed to the settlement offer; published reports do not confirm his assent.

Judge Claudia Burton’s ruling requires SAIF to give Plotkin his job back – but SAIF already has a CEO, and the Board appears extremely reluctant to return Plotkin to the corner office.

SAIF’s summary firing of Plotkin was not only illegal, it was grossly unfair to Plotkin, SAIF employees, SAIF policyholders, and the taxpayers of Oregon.  The evidence clearly shows – and the Judge agreed – that his firing was motivated by SAIF’s internal politics, the ambitions of Board members, and not by anything Plotkin did or didn’t do.

No, the case against Plotkin was fabricated, comprised of misquotes, misattributions, and outright lies on the part of his antagonists. The Board’s conduct was appalling at best.

I won’t restate the many issues with the Board, the history of this disgusting affair, or the damage this has done to employee morale at SAIF; Bob Wilson has masterfully documented this case. I encourage you to read his view on SAIF’s offer.

What does this mean for you?

Justice can be done, but Plotkin’s case demonstrates it can require a lot of money, an ocean of resolve and patience, and a lot of vocal support from other stakeholders.