MINUTES OF THE JOINT MEETING
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR
AND
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND MANAGEMENT
Sixty-seventh Session
February 4, 1993
The Joint Meeting of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor and Assembly Committee on Labor and Management was called to order by Senate Chairman, Randolph J. Townsend, at 3:45 p.m., on Thursday, February 4, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster for those in attendance in Carson City. Exhibit C is the Attendance Roster for those in attendance in Las Vegas.
SENATE COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
Senator Sue Lowden, Vice Chairman
Senator Ann O'Connell
Senator Mike McGinness
Senator Raymond C. Shaffer
Senator Leonard V. Nevin
Senator Lori L. Brown
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Assemblyman Christina R. Giunchigliani, Chairman
Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, Vice Chairman
Assemblyman Douglas A. Bache
Assemblyman John Bonaventura
Assemblyman John C. Carpenter
Assemblyman C.W. Collins, Jr.
Assemblyman Pete Ernaut
Assemblyman Lynn Hettrick
Assemblyman Erin Kenny
Assemblyman John B. Regan
Assemblyman Michael A. Schneider
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst
Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst
Donald Williams, Pricipal Research Analyst
Jan Needham, Senate Bill Drafting Advisor
Linda Krajewski, Primary Secretary
Marilyn Hofmann, Committee Secretary
Barbara Doke, Secretary
Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
February 4, 1993
Page 2
OTHERS PRESENT:
C. Brian Harris, Legal Counsel to Governor Miller
Scott M. Craigie, Chief of Staff to Governor Miller
Ron Krump, Krump Construction
Theodore J. Day, Hale Day Gallagher Company
William L. Keepers, Sierra Pacific Power Company
Fred Boyd, Napa-Sonoma-Reno
Frank Bender, Bender Warehouse Company
Paul Perkins, Chairman of the Board, Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN)
John Ascuaga, owner, Sparks Nugget
Martin Bibb, State Director, National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB)
Norman L. Dianda, President, Q & D Construction, Inc.
B. J. Sullivan, President, Clark & Sullivan Constructors
Denny Frook, Denny Frook Construction
Elaine McNeil, Associated Builders and Contractors
Blackie Evans, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Danny Thompson, Nevada State AFL-CIO
Lora P. Tedesco, Owner of Tedesco Construction, Inc.
Michael R. Tuxon, Tuxon Electric, Sparks, Nevada
Jim Paschall, President, Paschall Plumbing, Inc.
Dennis Nolan, Director of Safety and Risk Management, Mercy Paramedic Services
Charles Noret, Nevada Administrators
Michele Easley, Valley Hospital
Susan Harrelson, Human Resources Director, James Truss Company
Phil Stout, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Independent Businesses
Jerry Fransen, Director of Environmental Safety and Health, EE & G
Special Projects
Kevin Spilsbury, Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors of Southern Nevada
Dallas Coonrod, Associated General Contractors
Rabbi Mel Hecht, Chairman of the Board of Directors, SIIS
Steven Stucker, Nevada Association of Independent Businesses
Amy Sherk, President, Integrated Systems
Roy Walker, WES Construction
Daniel Rodgers
David Horton, representing Alternative Health Care Practitioners
Lynn Grandlund, Grandlund, Watson, Clark and Associates
Robert G. Jones, Builders Association of Northern Nevada
Pam Miller, Association of General Contractors
John Madole, Association of General Contractors
Dan Rusnak, Field Representative, Laborers' International Union of North America
Frank Pope
Senator Townsend announced the purpose of the hearing was to hear the overview of Governor Miller's Proposals on Workers' Compensation, to be presented by Scott M. Craigie, Chief of Staff and C. Brian Harris, Legal Counsel to Governor Miller.
The Overview of Governor's Proposals on Workers' Compensation, provided to each committee member, is attached as Exhibit D. The first to testify was Mr. Harris, who said he hoped this hearing would be the "...first of many meetings...to find a solution to the crisis...," in the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS).
Mr. Harris stated:
Everybody knows the seriousness of the problem, so for time efficiency I will not go through numbers.
The Governor views this very much as an open process...a team effort. The Governor sees his proposal as a work in progress...there are issues he believes to be absolutely essential to attacking this chaotic system...but he feels strongly that this has to be a shared effort...pulling together the best we each have to offer, if we are to be successful.
The Governor's plan has two major goals: to provide businesses with a workable, affordable insurance package that gives them coverage against losses due to worker injury; to provide workers genuine, quality coverage so, should they be injured, they are assured access to the medical care they need and a good opportunity to successfully return to work.
These are the two primary objectives the Governor had in mind when designing the proposal in your hands. Every other group who participates in any way in Nevada's workers compensation system either wins or loses depending on how well they can serve these goals...that means some in certain service professions, some SIIS employees, some care providers...will have a reduced role in the future. There has to be change and sacrifice to create a real solution.
There is a lot of disagreement about the numbers that define the problem. Whether you believe SIIS' analysis, or the Governor's, you still must find $100 to $200 million a year in savings if you are going to continue to protect injured workers...without a taxpayer bailout.
You cannot save that much money, you cannot save this system, without enacting sweeping changes. We will have to cut anything...everything that does not directly contribute to maintaining quality, essential care for injured workers. That means if we can provide quality care through a managed care program that requires treating physicians be part of an approved contract for care team...a closed panel of doctors... then we must do it.
If we can reduce costs by cutting fraud, we must do it.
The same is true of rehabilitation services; adding strong, effective safety programs; assuring workers can return to their place of work once they are able; establishing strict controls over medical treatment utilization ...every one of these and more.
The governor believes if we can make the changes and continue to provide quality care at a lower cost, "do it!"
One of the two guiding principles used to design the specific components of this package was this: this system must take advantage of the same proven, effective cost management systems widely used in almost every other area of health care. Workers compensation programs today operate on two levels in Nevada. First, there are the self-insureds. They operate efficient, quality systems that strictly control costs today, and have effectively contained the cost spiral year to year. Second, there are the companies stuck in the SIIS program. They are forced to operate handcuffed by 1950 market rules... coping with skyrocketing costs.
If we are to stop the flight of large employers from SIIS and control costs for SIIS covered companies, we must give the state's workers compensation system the same management tools available to these self-insureds.
There is no magic to these cost saving programs. They have evolved over the last 15 to 20 years and are used in virtually every area of health care delivery...except SIIS. Even we in state government fully utilize these controls providing cost effective group health care to our state employees.
Each of you on these committees are aware of the managed care proposals that would bring strong management and cost control equity to SIIS versus self-insured workers comp programs.
Let me make a plea for Governor Miller's plan versus some others being shopped around to you by some health care providers who want to keep a share of SIIS business. Because we have waited so many years to implement this managed care apparatus, SIIS cost and SIIS debt has skyrocketed. This delay threatens not only our ability to provide workers comp coverage...But threatens to saddle Nevadans with billions in past due bills.
If we had put managed care principles in place three or five years ago, we could have let everyone who wanted to keep a piece of the action. We no longer have that luxury.
Governor miller's plan proposes we employ multiple provider networks in delivering service. To inspire each network to bid the lowest price and best quality service possible, we must offer them exclusive rights to the business if they are awarded the contract.
Again, there is no magic. The marketplace has clearly defined the rules. The only way you get the best price, and best service is to offer volume business. Period. If we compromise on this ...we lose big money!
Multiple providers are necessary for many reasons. First, no one provider can carry this much business. Second, and just as important, we want to keep an element of competition in the system. We need to keep two or three provider networks working in the same market. Businesses will be allowed to choose from among the provider networks...re-select after a period of time. These customers will compare appeals rates, costs, satisfaction rates, performance and quality indicator ...competitive forces that work.
The most important principle to remember here: quality and cost containment only work when the physicians are cooperating, when the doctors are truly motivated to make it work. Governor Miller's program gives us the best chance to have the doctors working as hard as we are to reach our goals.
One area that is essential to restoring public confidence in SIIS...and containing cost is fraud. The Governor has proposed something pretty radical for any chief executive: consolidating the program in the attorney general's office. As probably all of you know, governors and attorney generals usually feud...fight to the death...over such assignments. The Office of Consumer Advocate, practicing before the Public Service Commission, and the Consumer Affairs Division were both subject of "do or die" battles between past governor and attorney generals.
Governor Miller believes this problem is too serious to be part of a turf battle...and the attorney general is fully capable of doing a great job in this area.
Some components are essential...like the creation of a secret witness type 1-800 hotline for reporting insurance fraud... like tough, new penalties for violators...and he believes we need to adequately staff this unit to make sure it works!
Mr. Craigie stated, "The SIIS flight continues...the exodus is leaving SIIS with a very small group of higher-risk companies and employees to serve." He said there were 29 requests for applications received in the office of the insurance commissioner in January, from companies who wished to become self-insured. Mr. Craigie stated five "fully filled out" applications have been returned in the past week. He said those five applications "...comprise a group of companies in this state that do over three-quarters of a billion dollars in business." Mr. Craigie indicated of the 16 applications pending at this time, "...one is for a company which is doing over $2 billion worth of business, and another is for a company doing $7 billion gross revenue business in this state...and they want to pull out of the system." He pointed out both the City of Henderson and the City of Sparks have withdrawn from the system. Mr. Craigie stated, "We are losing $5 million every week as we process these proposals...." He continued:
If there is any one message we want to emphasize...it is that we really have to make tough choices and massive change...that is going to be sacrifice. That is probably why this room is filled with so many people...there is so much that is at stake.
Mr. Craigie indicated the two committees represented at this hearing, "...are the only decision making center we can come to in order to make these changes...." He stated, "Only you on these two committees, working with the Governor, can prevent SIIS's bankruptcy. Mr. Craigie said the "toughest issue" to be faced was the "closed panel of doctors." He explained:
There are some tools the self-insureds have, that SIIS does not, and cannot have. If you prohibit a closed panel system from participating and offering the medical service, then you will forever leave the self-insured businesses capable of cutting their costs more than those smaller businesses that are left in the system. You will forever leave them at a competitive disadvantage...you keep SIIS's costs higher forever...if you prohibit a closed panel from being any part of this system, then you cannot use an HMO to solve part of this problem...you cannot use capitated rates (where you pay based on the number of employees you have...who potentially might use your system...when they need to use your system, they just come in and use it...they are already paid for).
Mr. Craigie stated there is an "inadequate incentive" to bid the price down. He stated:
If any doctor can...participate in the program and offer the service...whether they are in the bid process or not, what is the incentive for them to bid...what is the incentive to bid the price lower?
Mr. Craigie said he knew there were honest disagreements and policy issues to be discussed, but added, "This is an issue the Governor considers to be essential...managed care...the question is, is it the real stuff, or not?" He said with $5 million in losses per week, "...we cannot afford not to do this."
Mr. Craigie asked the joint committee to "listen to the managers who sell, broker and manage health care systems." He said they would indicate "almost uniformly, "that the ability to use a closed panel is essential. Mr. Craigie stated there are 65,000 active claims at this time, and indicated "...we have to begin to recover today...the 65,000 claims all must come under the new managed care system the day the bill passes and becomes law."
Mr. Craigie said one of the other "big budget buster issues" is rehabilitation services. He indicated rehabilitation costs went from $6 million in 1984 to $95 million in 1993. Mr. Craigie stated costs went up "42 percent, 71 percent and 90 percent in each of the last three audited years." He said SIIS costs are "out of control in the rehabilitation area." Mr. Craigie indicated the Governor recommends SIIS rehabilitation work be transferred to "Steve Shaw's shop...the State Rehabilitation Services Division." He said, "They can do the job...they are presently working with much more difficult rehabilitation cases...they are working with people who have absolutely no work history whatsoever." Mr. Craigie added, "The professional management skills are there in that division."
Mr. Craigie addressed a concern regarding "closing out" the private sector if the rehabilitation division "takes over." He said "fully one-half" the work they do is with the private sector.
Mr. Craigie next referred to the area of fraud, and asked Mr. Harris to comment. Mr. Harris stated:
One thing that is very essential to not only restore public confidence in SIIS, but to contain costs...is to get rid of the fraud...it is absolutely essential we crack down on the fraud that is in the system today. One of the things the Governor proposes to do...is to put a fraud unit in the attorney general's office...."
Mr. Harris continued, "We need to give the attorney general the tools to have a fraud unit." He said it was also essential to have a "1-800 secret witness hotline," so people can report fraud.
Mr. Craigie referred to page 2, section 5 of the Governor's overview (Exhibit D), which would require a claimant to be tested for alcohol and controlled substances within 2 hours after an injury, and would prohibit the payment of benefits if the tests are positive. Mr. Craigie stated, "We want to make it clear that SIIS compensation is not payable for an injury where consumption of alcohol or use of a controlled substance was a contributing cause." He said SIIS insurance was to "protect the worker and the company from accidents in the work place." Mr. Craigie indicated the Governor considered this "...to be an area of negligence, and should directly affect that person's ability to receive compensation."
Mr. Craigie next referenced the appeals process. He stated:
By bringing the managed care process, and employing it fully in SIIS, we get a number of other things...many self-insureds today, and many workers compensation systems around the country that have managed care programs, use the medical management system...to decide contested cases or disputed issues that are strictly medical issues.
Mr. Craigie indicated the Governor proposed this system for Nevada. He continued:
First and foremost, the people in the medical profession should deal with the medical contested issues...it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a group of lawyers deciding medical issues.
Mr. Craigie said there were areas which would required a contested hearing procedure, such as issues regarding whether an injury is work related, whether drugs or alcohol were a factor and whether fraud is involved. He said the appeals in these cases should involve a "one-time hearing...a one-time decision...."
Mr. Craigie said there were some "very strong professionals" working for SIIS, and the Governor does not mean in any way to reflect on those employees. He said, however, "...government bureaucracy is famous for red tape, and it reaches its peak in this system." Mr. Craigie said there must be a way to "cut the paper clog that strangles SIIS." He said one of the proposals was the institution of a $400 deductible to be paid by businesses. Mr. Craigie indicated this would cut the paper work by nearly 20 percent, because the small claims would not have to go through the same process as massive claims. He continued to say they do not believe there is need of an "injury form" to be filed by a business until medical care is needed.
Mr. Craigie next referred to the need for an "effective safety program" in each business. He said the Governor recommended a "statutory requirement that all businesses have a written safety program in place...," and recommended a fine of up to 15 percent of their premium for failure to comply.
The chief of staff stated the legislature must make some policy changes regarding important benefit issues. He stated, "We cannot finish this process and walk away without this being done." Mr. Craigie said one of the most important changes would be the cessation of "lifetime reopeners." He continued, "It is a good benefit, but it is not a benefit that is essential, and it is not a benefit we can any longer afford." Mr. Craigie said the Governor has suggested a five-year limitation, which would be applied to past injured workers as well as those injured from the date the law would become effective.
Mr. Craigie turned to the matter of stress-related injuries, and said stress had been "broadened" as a compensable injury by the American Medical Association (AMA). He stated:
The policy statement on stress has to be made here by this legislature...our recommendation is to remove stress as a compensable injury...and to apply it to the definition of injury...a sudden event that causes a sudden change.
Mr. Craigie said it was essential to make a clear policy statement "...to prohibit payment for a person while they are incarcerated." He said the issue of the state insurance program, broken down to its bare essentials, "...is to protect the person and give them what they would have earned if they had been working...when they are in prison, they could not be working."
Mr. Craigie referred to the ombudsman system within SIIS, which he said was a "good program," but it was not included in the statutes. He said the Governor recommends it be placed in the statutes, and that there be an ombudsman both in northern and southern Nevada. Mr. Craigie stated, "If we are to restore confidence, and if we are to learn from out customers in this system, we have to have a way for them to reach into the system...and for us to discover their problems."
Mr. Craigie stressed the importance of all companies, even those who are situated in other states but do business in Nevada, to pay SIIS premiums, and recommended higher fines for those who do not. He also said SIIS must function more like a private insurance company, "...and less like a government bureaucracy." The chief of staff indicated they have made recommendations, on an emergency basis, subject to a six-year sunset provision. He continued:
We have proposed that SIIS be removed from the budget act and from the personnel act...so when we go through these very dramatic and dynamic changes...it can function and meet those needs.
Mr. Craigie said SIIS needs to have the same type of treatment a private insurance company would have in terms of regulatory structure, and there needs to be a "toughening and a clarifying of how the insurance commissioner will deal with it...."
Finally, Mr. Craigie stated, "...the Governor has recommended we abolish the SIIS board of directors." He said the issue of placing the responsibility of the department directly under the Governor, with a sunset of six years, "...is the biggest risk I have ever seen this governor take...this is an act of courage on his part, unlike any I have ever seen." Mr. Craigie continued:
Only the elected officials in this room can fully appreciate the level of risk that Bob Miller has taken...but the only way we can fix this problem is to deal with it like a flat out emergency...and it is.
Mr. Craigie asked the committee to also "give [the Governor] the tools...the rehab transfer, the tough, tight, hardball managed care program...all of those we have described, and all of the ideas you can add to it." He said a lot of good work has been done by the interim committee, and added: "This is an open process...a shared responsibility...we want to do it together, and we need to take the tough steps to get the job done."
Senator Townsend thanked both Mr. Harris and Mr. Craigie for their presentations. He then indicated there were a number of persons who had expressed a desire to testify. The chairman said all members of the joint committees were empathetic to the specific problems of both the injured workers and the employers, but stressed the purpose of the hearing "...was to address those things which have been presented by the administration today, and any suggestions which might be constructive to these two committees."
The first to speak was Ron Krump, Krump Construction, Inc., who introduced a group of business persons who would testify. He stated their group represented "unquestionably" the largest north-south business coalition ever established in the state. Mr. Krump provided to the joint committees a statement from the Nevada Unified Business Coalition, which is attached as Exhibit E. He said the coalition represents between 10,000 and 12,000 employers, which employers provide 90 percent to 95 percent of the nongovernment employment in the state. Mr. Krump stated the "magnet" for the coalition was "this very important issue we are all here to discuss today." Mr. Krump continued:
Some of us have spent time this week listening to the testimony and attending the hearings...however, most of us cannot spend a lot of time here at the legislature, so we appreciate very much your taking this time to let us all speak to you and demonstrate how strongly we feel about this issue.
...Previously we have looked at the consensus legislation package and the SIIS business plan package, and we are in support of both of those. It appears that the Governor's proposal and the package the senate committee is putting together are on track.
Mr. Krump referred to Exhibit E and the issue of managed care, stating, "it can be the number one money saving device for this program." He added however, "...it must include multiple provider networks...not just one sole source for managed care." Mr. Krump said utilization review should be part of the managed care organization, "...not a separate governmental agency." He said the plan must limit the injured workers' choices. Mr. Krump continued:
I want to interject...in no way are we anticipating or expecting substandard are. We feel very strongly with a proper system the injured workers will not only get better, but more efficient and effective care.
Mr. Krump next referred to procedural reform and stated, "This needs to facilitate an early return to work...we need to eliminate unnecessary paperwork and prevent abuse of the system." He added most stress claims "need to be eliminated." In the area of legal reform, Mr. Krump said there should be interpretation "according to the plain meaning of the law," and said employment must be the major cause of an injury.
Mr. Krump referred to permanent partial disability, and stated, "We need to change the formula as to how awards are calculated, and we need to evaluate the process by which awards are determined." He spoke to the issue of rehabilitation, and said so long as the American Disability Act (ADA) provisions apply there is no need for rehabilitation services. Mr. Krump emphasized fraud "must be eliminated at all levels."
Mr. Krump concluded,
We agree with the Governor. SIIS must be given the power to operate as an insurance company and not a governmental agency...we are the ones paying the bill, and if it fails, we will be the ones to bail it out, so please listen to us.
The next to testify was T.J. Day, Senior Partner in the real estate firm of Hale Day Gallagher Company, Reno, Nevada. He stated he was appearing on behalf of the chairman of the board of the Greater Reno-Sparks Chamber of Commerce, and on behalf of 2,000 private sector and business people who are members of the chamber. Mr. Day spoke from a prepared statement, attached hereto as Exhibit F.
Bill Keepers, President and Chief Executive Office of Sierra Pacific Power Company, (SPPC) testified on behalf of the company, which he identified as being "self-insured." He stated SPPC supports the unified proposals described by Mr. Krump. Mr. Keepers
explained why the company withdrew from SIIS, and how they have achieved success with a self-insured system:
We employ over 1,700 employees...since the 1970's we have had a very aggressive, comprehensive program to manage safety, and benefits for our employees, including health insurance...in the early 1980's we went to self-insured health benefits, and we take our responsibilities seriously....We began looking at the possibility of withdrawal from the state system in 1990...our concern when to the overall managed care of the employee... effective July 1, 1991, we have been out of the system. Our target was to have...better claims management and better service for our employees, and better and faster rehabilitation for injured workers. We have an integrated approach...the results in the first six months are extremely encouraging. The response from employees has been very good. They like the quick claims management...we do save significant money...our forecast for 1993 on a $1 million program will save $200,000 by not being in the state program.
The next to testify was Fred Boyd, one of three owners of Napa-Sonoma-Reno, a small retail business. Mr. Boyd stated the business employs five full-time and five part-time people, as well as "seasonal employees." He said since the business was established in April, 1986, "...we have paid premium into SIIS of $42,000. We have claims just under $2,000...in almost 7 years." He said this disproportionately high contribution "does not relate to our low experience modification of .67, one which has gone down every year while our SIIS costs climb higher and higher." Mr. Boyd indicated they were a small business "unable to self-insure to team up...," and felt their costs would "go through the proverbial roof, as more and more larger companies make the move to self-insurance in order to save big dollars." He added those businesses were going to "remove themselves from the clutches of the inefficiencies of the SIIS." Mr. Boyd said if legal reforms and much tighter internal controls and procedures are not agreed upon soon, "...those larger self-insureds, as well as those of us who cannot self insure, will pay an incredible price." Mr. Boyd indicated there are solutions, and stated:
As soon as SIIS begins to operate as an insurance company; as soon as current management can spend more time on day-to-day problems, inefficiencies and cost-saving opportunities and less time on much needed legislative changes, we can then bring this runaway train to a halt. To me, this doesn't seem like a political issue. It needn't be management versus labor or management versus worker...this is common sense, economic realism.
Testifying next was Frank Bender, owner of Bender Warehouse Company, Reno, Nevada. Mr. Bender spoke from a prepared statement, attached hereto as Exhibit G. Mr. Bender referred to the plan instituted in the State of Oregon, and distributed to the committee a news release from the Oregon Department of Insurance and Finance, which is included as Exhibit H.
The next to speak to the committee was Paul Perkins, Vice President of Industrial Properties for CB Commercial Real Estate, who spoke on behalf of the 220 members of the Economic Development Authority of Western Nevada (EDAWN). Mr. Perkins stated the members of EDAWN were committed to the "economic diversification and growth of the Reno-Sparks economy." He said in October, 1991, Alaska Airlines "informed us that no city in the State of Nevada remained on their 'short list' of sites they were considering for an aircraft maintenance facility." He said that facility would employ 2,000 people, with an average salary of $40,000, and a capital investment of $50 million. Mr. Perkins stated, "We were, to say the least, surprised...dumbfounded...that our proposal, which seemed to have been met with a positive reaction...was rejected." He said EDAWN sent a delegation to find out why their proposal did not "make the short list." Mr. Perkins continued:
We learned that the workers' compensation rates in Utah, Arizona and Oregon were between $1.4 million and $1.6 million per year for this type of operation. Nevada's was $4.8 million. This constituted the primary reason they eliminated Nevada from the short list. That served as an early warning to us...prior to that time, we had no idea we were in that much trouble."
Mr. Perkins lauded Mr. Krump's efforts in establishing the coalition, and commended their work. He asked the committee to consider the proposal carefully. Mr. Perkins concluded, "It is not a matter of the health of this state, it is a matter of life or death of this state economically."
The next to testify was John Ascuaga, who stated he was owner of the Sparks Nugget, "with several banks." Mr. Ascuaga said his dedication to the SIIS problem was a "matter of survival." He indicated his company reviews every one of their SIIS cases, and "signs every check." Mr. Ascuaga stated there were approximately 2,800 employees at the Sparks Nugget, who were self-insured, and said the casino has an "outstanding health program for all employees." He expressed
his support for the Governor's proposal. Mr. Ascuaga said if the problem were not solved, "...there would not be anything left in this state."
Mr. Krump said the coalition's formal presentation was concluded, but indicated there were others who wished to address the committee.
Testifying on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) was Martin Bibb, State Director. Mr. Bibb provided a prepared statement, which is attached hereto as Exhibit I.
Following Mr. Bibb's testimony, Norman Dianda, President and Owner of Q & D Construction, spoke to the committee. (See Exhibit J). Mr. Dianda said his firm has been in business in Reno for 30 years, and currently employs an average of 125 to 250 people in the "peak season." He stated, "In the past several years, the cost of workers' compensation insurance has become a significant portion of our overhead expense." Mr. Dianda commended the committee for "taking swift action to bring the cost of SIIS in line with what Nevada employers can afford." He stated he wished to make comments "which parallel" the position of the business coalition formed in the northern and southern part of the state through EDAWN and the chamber of commerce. Mr. Dianda said:
It is essential that managed care be incorporated into the health care delivery system for workers' compensation insurance in the State of Nevada. Although there are a number of definitions for managed care, those adopted by the business coalition would seem to assure both quality and cost effective care. The proposal was streamlined for the early return to work of injured workers into temporarily modified duty positions and to eliminate unnecessary paperwork...also deserve the support of your committee.
I would also urge your committee to include provisions that would require that our workers' compensation laws be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the law. Existing Supreme Court cases which required a liberal interpretation of the law, has inflated costs and permitted payment of claims which should not have been accepted as workers' compensation claims.
Mr. Dianda stated the status on fraud must also be revised, as it affects not only the employee, but medical providers and employers as well. He said there must be a "fraud squad" which will aggressively prosecute anyone responsible for fraudulent workers' compensation claims. Mr. Dianda expressed his desire to testify at the time of hearing legislation developed regarding this matter.
The next to testify was B.J. Sullivan, President of Clark & Sullivan Constructors, Reno, Nevada, a company employing approximately 250 people. Mr. Sullivan stated the company had a very active safety program. He said the company pays "...about the same rates as Frank Bender does with 500 people, because of our higher rate." Mr. Sullivan said the Association of General Contractors (AGC) has been very interested in "what is happening with SIIS," and they feel "it is very important that everybody fall into line around the leadership of one person...hopefully that person is Governor Miller." He said he hoped party affiliations would be put aside. Mr. Sullivan referred to the State of Oregon reform (see Exhibit H), which was not successful at its beginning in 1987, because there were "too many ancillary people involved...attorneys, doctors...." He stated he believed in order to "turn things around," there must be people from management and labor to "sit down and come up with some ground rules." Mr. Sullivan reiterated, "managed care is mandatory." He expressed a desire to be "self-insured," but said the company does not have the financial wherewithal to back the catastrophic plan. Mr. Sullivan added, "Every time a company goes self-insured, I get in a deeper and deeper rut...we are getting buried."
Following the testimony of Mr. Sullivan, Denny Frook, of Denny Frook Construction spoke to the committee. He said he has been in business for 15 years, and is in support of the Governor's proposal. Mr. Frook echoed other testimony on behalf of managed care and the fraud issue. He agreed with the removal of stress as a legitimate claim. Mr. Frook stated SIIS "should be run like a business...as an insurance company." He stated:
The benefits under SIIS are...better than anything out there...better than welfare, better than unemployment...definitely better than working. There are a lot of them out there drawing it, and enjoying every minute."
The next to testify was Elaine McNeil, representing Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC). She thanked Senator Townsend for scheduling the hearing during the late afternoon, to accommodate those who might not otherwise be able to attend. Ms. McNeil said the ABC supports the ideas set forth by Mr. Krump, and reiterated the importance of managed care and controlled fraud. She said the organization represented many small contractors, "...who are having a difficult time making SIIS payments." Ms. McNeil stated the ABC has been working with SIIS "...to try to implement a safety program and a return to duty program, which we think are essential to control SIIS costs." She asked the committee "to allow an association such as ours to offer to our members the same sort of things that self-insureds can take advantage of now." Ms. McNeil said that would include being able to offer claims management, in order to "get outside" the system. She indicated the larger employers who are self-insured are paying far less than the smaller employer who must remain with the system. She referred to a former member of ABC who had written a letter to the Governor, stating, "SIIS, as far as I am concerned, has closed the doors to our business."
Senator Townsend asked Mr. Krump if there would be a representative of the coalition at the hearing on February 5th, and pointed out no one in the group had addressed the major issue of the Governor's proposal regarding the board elimination. Mr. Krump stated he could not give the chairman a formal statement, but the feeling of the coalition was, "We would like to see the Governor's resume on running insurance companies."
The next to testify was Blackie Evans, Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Nevada State AFL-CIO, which is composed of 87 local unions with approximately 85,000 members throughout the state. Mr. Evans stated he wished to "bring up some things that haven't been mentioned about the proposal...." He advised the committee that the board of directors of the organization agreed "over four months ago" to support a managed care system. Mr. Evans stated they believed it to be a cost-saving measure. He also indicated support for the establishment of a fraud unit, "...as long as you do the same thing to the provider...to the medical care people and to the employer."
Mr. Evans referred to page 2, section 4 of Exhibit D, and stated:
[That] language represents a 27.5 percent decrease to the injured worker for temporary total disability, for permanent total disability, for partial disability and for survivors of fatally injured workers...no one has mentioned that.
He agreed there was a "problem within the system," but he disagreed with a reduction in benefits as stated above. Mr. Evans added, "I don't agree you should balance a deficit on the back of injured workers." He also brought up the problem of staffing at SIIS and said, "Every single study we have seen says the major problem the system has is understaffing...claims examiners with 4,000 claims...." Mr. Evans asked:
We are talking a reduction of 27.5 percent of every benefit the injured worker gets in this state. Is it the injured workers' fault if the legislature screws up...if
the board of directors screw up...if the administration screws up...is it their fault? Evidently someone thinks so.
Mr. Evans continued:
I don't see how two top actuarial firms can be $1 billion apart. I remember sitting in this room four years ago and being told by nationally known firms that the system was solvent. You cannot spend $2 billion in two years time....
Mr. Evans reiterated labor's support of legislation to "clean up the system," but disputed a provision limiting time to reopen claims. He stated he believed injured workers "did not want to stay home...they want to work...and I am sick and tired of people saying the whole problem is because of the workers in our state...that is not true." Mr. Evans also disputed the elimination of stress claims, "...because there are such things."
The next to testify on behalf of the Nevada State AFL-CIO was Danny Thompson. Mr. Thompson stated:
The implication that someone is out there getting hurt on purpose so they can live off compensation is pretty ridiculous. If you don't think we have problems with the system, when our guys are drug through the mud and laid out on comp, and going to be rehabed (sic)...we know* it doesn't work. The bottom line...that is not that guy's fault. The thing that concerns me, is that in a zeal to pass a bill and to correct a problem...don't kneejerk something just because there is a problem. We admit there is a problem, and we want to fix it...but we don't want to fix it at the expense of the injured worker.
Mr. Thompson referred to the fraud issue and said, "There is nobody in the state conducting employer fraud...they should be after employers who are cheating."
Mr. Evans interjected by stating the proposal to "turn the injured worker in this state back over to vocational rehabilitation, which still would be paid by the workers' compensation system, is asking for trouble." He also suggested a return to the "old system" with a labor commissioner and management commissioner to "run the operation," as it was done prior to 1980. Mr. Evans added, "If we really want to straighten out the system, let's put it all under one umbrella...you know who to blame."
The next person to speak to the committee was Lora P. Tedesco, owner of Tedesco Construction. Ms. Tedesco stated she had not heard anyone blame an injured worker for "the mess the system is in right now." Those in attendance applauded her statement. Ms. Tedesco said their company paid "just under $250,000 per year," and added she currently has no claims examiner. Ms. Tedesco emphasized "that is not very good management." She continued:
Even when fraud is obvious...with documentation of various kinds, it is more feasible to remove the costs of the claim through subsequent or incentive or mishandling by SIIS than pursuing the fraud itself. This increases the debt of the system and it does not place the blame and accountability on the fraudulent claimant. It has to be stopped."
Ms. Tedesco stated vocational rehabilitation dealt with "people who want to work." She said it was her experience that many employees do not have that same incentive. Ms. Tedesco suggested "return to work specialists" to deal with injured workers. She closed by stating, "The Governor's package is the minimum that has to be done in the upcoming session to mitigate the system that has gone out of control."
The next to testify was Michael R. Tuxon, Owner of Tuxon Electric and a partner in Triple T Electric in Sparks, Nevada. He said he saw a "dire need" for SIIS or other insurance coverage to protect the injured worker. He added, "What I do not want is the type of program we have now, which I feel is basically a retirement annuity for some of the employees." Mr. Tuxon disputed the "lifetime" ability to reopen a claim, and said an employee should have the same limitations and bounds put on him that an employer has. He stated he believed attorneys "should be kept out of the program, because they just run up the cost," and the system should be "worked between SIIS, the employer and employee." Mr. Tuxon said everyone needed to make sacrifices, both the employers and the employees, although he believes "...most of the sacrifices that I see right now are coming from the employers...right out of our pockets."
Following Mr. Tuxon's testimony, Jim Paschall, President of Paschall Plumbing, Inc., spoke to the committee. Mr. Paschall indicated the concern within the business committee has been, "Those who have tried to run legitimate businesses have been punished for running legitimate businesses...." He said they are hoping they will not be punished further for being in business, "...as it seems we have been." He said his company's premiums have shown a "triple increase" from November of 1991 to November, 1992. Mr. Paschall gave the following example:
Suppose you took your car to an automobile repairman... and they told you, 'I am sorry, Senator, but we have had a lot of mismanagement and fraud in our office, a lot of excessive expenditures that we probably shouldn't have been involved in, but there is a way out...our rates are going to be triple from what they were last year.' This will give you a chance to feel what I feel like. You might say, 'I am going somewhere else.' Unfortunately, as a small business owner, I don't have that opportunity.
Mr. Paschall said his company has had cutbacks, has had to eliminate staff and bonuses, and has had to postpone expansion indefinitely. He said he may ultimately face the elimination of his business as a result of the spiraling costs of SIIS premiums. Mr. Paschall remarked as follows:
The concern in Nevada has been diversification...when Nevada is chopping itself off at the knees, we have a difficult time attracting new businesses in this state. Businesses...look to other states to relocate...and when they look to Nevada, and see their workers' compensation mess, they are going to be looking elsewhere. We would like to see Nevada be a thriving state, not only for local business which operate here, but also for new businesses that would want to come here.
Mr. Paschall asked the joint committees to "adopt reflective reform, and we would embrace what the Governor has requested." He closed by stating:
I would ask that you not make Nevada a wasteland of failed businesses, as could happen in my case...by businesses that have been overburdened with excessive taxation as a result of the state's mismanagement. If you gear everything at the caboose of the train, you will kill the engine. Nevada businesses represent the engine, and we are grinding to a halt.
Mr. Paschall stated they would like to see the system upgraded, at a minimum, "...as the Governor has proposed."
The next group of individuals to testify did so by teleconference from Las Vegas. First to speak was Dennis Nolan, Director of Safety and Risk Management for Mercy Paramedic Services, Las Vegas, Nevada. He said he was also a board member for the Employer for Workmans' Compensation, a member of the Nevada Business Coalition, and the committee on worker's compensation for the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Nolan said he would "laud the Governor and his staff for a very comprehensive job on identifying the issues and coming up with a very workable program." He said he would like to identify some of the areas in the Governor's proposal with which the organizations he represents "take some degree of issue."
Of the 50 items and proposals which were presented... there are only six we really have an issue with...we think this demonstrates quite a successful program.
With reference to...the suggestion that all employers with 25 or more employees must (a) rehire injured workers to regular jobs for up to 3 years... and (b) provide light duty work to all employees, with a fine up to $10,000 for violations. Our opposition...employers with 25 employees or less constitute a very high percentage of the employers in the state...these people are excluded from this provision, and therefore...are not penalized by this same proposal. We feel anything which is levied should be levied to all employers across the board. If he expects an employer to keep a position open for 3 years..that is just not realistic...that is an absolute unworkable item on his agenda...
In concept...we agree with light duty, and returning employees back to work...however, if you mandate that all employers provide every employee with light duty...there might not be light duty jobs available...there has to be an alternative...
We absolutely agree with [the implementation] of a safety program...but we want to make sure there is some type of accountability on the employee's part...if there is an employee or intentionally or flagrantly ignores the safety practices and is injured...
The item which mandates a $400 deductible for every SIIS employer and for every injury...we agree in concept... however that could bear a hardship on smaller businesses. We would ask you consider reducing that deductible to $200. With respect to co-pay...we strongly feel that the bailout of SIIS is a shared responsibility...we would promote a co-pay just like any other insurance system.
The next to testify was Charles Noret, Nevada Administrators, who stated he represented "a number of employers in Nevada." Mr. Noret said one of the important items mentioned in the presentation of the Governor's proposal was the operative term, "openness." He stated, "This must be an open process throughout." Mr. Noret added, "We all agree something must be done with the system...but what that is, is based on not only the Governor's proposals but all the interim committees and other proposals. He asked the committee to the "mindful" of the fact the situation has "snowballed," and to remember the task is not easy. Mr. Noret said the proposals must not be "cut and pasted to the point where we put a bandaid on an arterial wound."
Michele Easley, Valley Hospital, spoke to the committee stating, "The employers of Nevada have been telling everyone what is wrong with our workers' compensation program for many years, but nobody has listened." She said they tried to tell the Governor to hire enough people at SIIS to do the job, "but nobody listened." Ms. Easley continued:
We said if the Governor's approval process for replacing employees who leave must be sped up, or the problems would become worse...again, nobody listened. We pointed out that the Governor's hearing division has a total disregard for the law when making its decisions, but nobody listened. We hope you are listening now.
Ms. Easley said the employers have come together with a comprehensive package, which suggests what needs to be done and how to do it. She added, "It doesn't include putting the system in the hands of the Governor, for very obvious reasons." Ms. Easley indicated control of the system should be placed in the hands of the employers, "where it belongs." She continued:
The Governor's bill wants to abolish the board... apparently he feels it has been ineffective...let me remind you, he is responsible for that also...our bill includes allowing all insurers to contact health care through provided networks. The Governor's bill only allows SIIS to do this. [Our bill proposal] includes changes in the hearing process, so that decisions are made within the confines of the law rather than outside it. It limits PPD's, reopening rights and requires reimbursement of overpayments.
We feel you have ignored us...you have blamed us...and you have taxed us to the hilt, and nothing has changed. This time we ask that you listen to our lobbyists...it will make a difference.
The next to testify from Las Vegas was Susan Harrelson, Human Resources Director, James Truss Company. She said her company employs just under 100 people. Ms. Harrelson stated:
James Truss Company feels very strongly that the program the Governor has come out with is a good one. There is nothing in it that is not going to anger or upset somebody. Our concern is if any special interests, including the employers, start chopping away...and trying to delete the portions they personally do not like, we are not going to get anywhere...we will not solve our problems. We at James Truss Company agree with all the provisions of the Governor's proposal, and we support it wholeheartedly....
Speaking to the committee from Las Vegas was Phil Stout, Executive Director, Nevada Association of Independent Businesses. Mr. Stout stated the board of directors of the association "was not completely together" on whether or not the Governor should eliminate the SIIS board of directors. He said they felt there was a good opportunity for access "due to the open meeting law," and the membership has always had the opportunity to go to the SIIS board to present their cases. Mr. Stout said the association also had concerns regarding the proposal which sets forth the advisory board "only having one rate payer...."
The next to testify was Jerry Fransen, Director, Environmental Safety and Health, E G & G Special Projects. Mr. Fransen stated the company "basically agreed with the Governor's proposal, "but added there were "a couple of things that needed to be fixed." He stated:
We have heard to day about the self-insureds doing so well. If they have to comply with the same laws the rest of us do, what is wrong with the law...maybe we need to fix the system (SIIS)....
Testifying next was Kevin Spilsbury. Mr. Spilsbury indicated he represented the Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors of Southern Nevada. He said he was also the owner of Quality Mechanical, a company which employs approximately 250 people. Mr. Spilsbury stated he was in agreement with the other employers who had testified. He referred to the issue of the SIIS board of directors, and said he felt "turning it over to the Governor... would be taxation without representation on behalf of the employer." Mr. Spilsbury asked the committee to examine all the proposals and indicated they should "do this once," so it would be done right.
The next to testify was Dallas Coonrod, representing Associated General Contractors (AGC), which includes 360 commercial construction and construction related firms. Mr. Coonrod stated the AGC "basically agrees" with the Governor's proposal, and they have only a few small revisions to request, which would be discussed when the committee met in Las Vegas.
The last to testify from Las Vegas was Rabbi Mel Hecht, Chairman of the Board of Directors of SIIS. Rabbi Hecht stated:
My support of maintaining the board is not because of my presence on it, but because I feel that you do need that cushion between the political aspect of the government and the functioning of an insurance company such as SIIS. When I became chairman, I was mandated by the Governor to try to solidify the board and to find out basically what was wrong with SIIS...if we didn't already know. I think we have fulfilled that mandate admirably. What we need now is to be able to function with the tools necessary to get SIIS back on its feet.
Testifying from Carson City was Steven Stucker, representing the Nevada Association of Independent Businesses (NAIB) an association of approximately 800 independent businesses statewide. Mr. Stucker addressed the proposal regarding the right to return to work within 3 years of the date of injury. He said that provision would unreasonably restrict management decisions for a long time, particularly for smaller businesses. Mr. Stucker cited as an example a business with 25 employees, who could not keep a position open for that length of time. He pointed also to the requirement to provide "light duty work," and said it does not contain a provision for "alleviation of the situation if, in fact, no light duty is available." Mr. Stucker referred next to the suggestion regarding abolishment of the SIIS board of directors. He said the NAIB membership feel "that would be a grave mistake...political expedience might be the result rather than an appropriate business decision which would be made by the board...." Mr. Stucker indicated the NAIB would support the proposal of the Nevada Unified Business Coalition.
The next to testify was Amy Sherk, President, Integrated Systems.
She indicated they have been in business since 1986, and stated many of the claims against the company have not been checked closely enough through SIIS. She cited a case of an employee who worked for the company for three days, and stated he had a wrist injury. Ms. Sherk stated SIIS took close to 2 years to decide what was wrong, and it cost the company thousands of dollars. She said he collected disability during that time, sued for a settlement, and quit the job. In addition, she stated, their rates were increased. Ms. Sherk reiterated SIIS should have done more to assure that the worker was actually injured to that extent.
The next person to address the joint committee was Roy Walker, of WES Construction. Mr. Walker stated:
I first came down to vent some of my frustrations on the system. I have been an employer for 18 years and have been paying into the system, and now find it in such tragic shape. I, as an employer, am embarrassed.
He said, "...I would like a chance to get out of the system." Mr. Walker indicated he could not, because he was a small employer. He said he would like to see a program implemented which competition would keep "...on the leading edge." Mr. Walker stated he needed a method "to keep this system competitive," so his business could remain competitive. He also referred to the proposal regarding "light work," and said in the construction business there was very little light work. In closing, Mr. Walker suggested hiring "...the chief executive officer in Oregon...go to a system that is working."
The next to appear was Daniel Rodgers, who described himself as an injured worker, and said, "I want out of the system, and I can't get out of it." Mr. Rodgers provided a list of problems he has faced, and his statement is attached as Exhibit K. He reviewed the points of his statement for the committee. His major point was, "The system doesn't work...I'm caught up in appeals...where do they go? Nowhere...I have been going through 4 years of it and I have a stack of nightmares that long...." Mr. Rodgers continued:
They tell me to adapt to the situation...why do you have to adapt to a situation what wasn't created by you. That is like telling the homeless to adapt to the streets... They expect us to sit here and be quiet. I can't be quiet any more. I want out of the system...I hope some of you can find a way to do something....
Testifying on behalf of Alternative Health Care Practitioners was David Horton. Mr. Horton stated he wished to cover a facet which he had not seen in the suggestions set forth. He said there was a problem because the system was "constructed to pay everybody involved for the worker not returning to work." Mr. Horton provided a statement covering their position, which is set forth as Exhibit L. He said there was a group of alternative health care practitioners who "have a lot of interdisciplinary skills...and some new technology." Mr. Horton said the group proposed to bid on a number of SIIS cases, randomly assigned, "...where they make no profit until the injured worker returns to work." Mr. Horton referred to Exhibit L, which was left to the members of the joint committee, and said there were suggestions included in that package.
The next to testify was Lynn Grandlund, Grandlund, Watson Clark and Associates, Las Vegas. Ms. Grandlund indicated she had spoken before the committees during the 1991 session. She said she and her associates thoroughly reviewed the Governor's proposal, and feel there are many good issues which "...we are thrilled to see handled." Ms. Grandlund referred to the issue of fraud, and referred to the case of an uninsured employer, who "ripped off all of the rest of the honest employers who pay our premiums, ...," was fined a total of $250. She said if an employer was only fined $250 for failing to turn in a "C-3," the offense of not being insured should carry a higher fine. With respect to vocational rehabilitation, Ms. Grandlund stated her company felt "it must stay within the state industrial insurance system...and should not put us through another state agency." She turned to the issue of the board of directors, and since the employers paid the bills, they "have to have a voice...the SIIS board of directors does function and has protected we employers...[but] not to the degree we would like." Ms. Grandlund suggested there be more policyholders on the board. She said she knew of no private insurance company that has only an advisory board, and most insurance companies have the power to hire and fire the chief executive officer of that company. She said employers should be allowed to hear "what is going on with our money," and to "allow us the opportunity to give the board of directors our input."
Robert G. Jones, Builders Association of Northern Nevada was the next to appear. He spoke from a prepared statement, attached hereto as Exhibit M.
The next to speak was Pam Miller, representing the Association of General Contractors (AGC). Ms. Miller stated, "This is an extremely important issue to our industry," and said they are in agreement with a large part of the Governor's proposal which has been presented. However, she said, there were several things they disputed, among them the requirement that an employee could return to work up to 3 years from the date of the injury, and the mandatory light duty proposal. Ms. Miller introduced John Madole, also representing the AGC. Mr. Madole indicated their disagreement with the proposed elimination of an independent board. He set forth the major concern:
...Having a $500 or $600 million corporation run by someone who may or may not have any of the qualifications...those are our employers' dollars...we don't think that is the most prudent way to manage the money...just because someone is a personal friend of a future governor...to wind up running up a corporation
like this...we would certainly urge both committees to take a close look...and see if that is the best way to go.
The testimony of Sheril Byars, Controller of Byars Construction, who was unable to attend the hearing, is entered into the record as Exhibit N.
The next to appear before the committee was Dan Rusnak, Field Representative, Laborers' International Union of North America. Mr. Rusnak stated he wished to respond to a statement made by Robert Jones of the Builders Association of Northern Nevada. He said labor was not opposed to reform of the system, and were in favor of "reform where reform is needed." Mr. Rusnak continued:
There are good things in the Governor's proposal, and there are bad things in the Governor;s proposal...there are things in the Governor's proposal I don't understand whatsoever. I can't believe people said, 'This is great,' since it is like reading a dictionary...a lot of things in there are great, but it is how you use them.
Mr. Rusnak referred to Mr. Jones' statement regarding the increase in caps, and said it should be remembered that action was taken by the SIIS board in response to requests made to them both from business groups, such as the AGC and from unions, such as the AFL-CIO. He stated: "You have a board...if anything, they need their powers increased rather than decreased...they need to be more involved in the day-to-day operation of the SIIS system." Mr. Rusnak said he agreed with Mr. Madole regarding having one person in charge of the system. Mr. Rusnak referred to other suggestions made in the Governor's proposal, and said he would like to discuss them in greater detail when he knew more about them. He moved to the proposal regarding the denial of benefits if a drug or alcohol trust were positive and stated, "I don't think you need to trample over people's rights...and just because a test is positive...you can pull away somebody's benefits." Mr. Rusnak said the area of managed care was very important, and said the employers he is familiar with "...can work with managed care...we are looking to cut our costs too...but it does need to be defined."
Mr. Rusnak reiterated, "I can't see how anybody could agree with all this." He said it was important for labor and management to "get together" on this issue. He concluded, "It is important that we get some things out of this...but I don't think we can get it out of one bill."
The last person to testify was Frank Pope, from Sparks Nevada, who said he was an injured worker. He addressed the committee:
I have been wrapped up in this system for 13 months...I should have been back to work 6 or 8 months ago. I have had four rehabilitation counselors...I am caught in the system...I can't do the job I used to do. I should be comfortable...I get maximum money from the state. I don't want to get comfortable...I want to know where my future is. I want to know why...everybody gets 30 days for paperwork...why a doctor gets 30 days...why an employer gets 30 days...the inconsistency in reports, the lost reports...I have spent more time doing my own running around...I hand carry them...everybody gets a copy...my employer gets an incomplete report, when I took the time to make it complete...but it is lost. It's a paperwork jungle, and it doesn't need to be. I have taken the time to try to simplify things for everybody in my case...and for some reason there is no cooperation. I want to work!
Senator Townsend thanked everyone who attended the hearing, and indicated both the senate and assembly committees would be very focused on the subject discussed. Ms. Giunchigliani thanked the committee members and the audience for their attendance and cooperation. Both Senator Townsend and Ms. Giunchigliani expressed appreciation to the staff members present at the hearing.
There being no further business to come before the joint committees, the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
__________________________
Marilyn Hofmann,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
________________________________
Senator Randolph J. Townsend,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Commerce
and Labor
DATE: __________________________
________________________________
Christina R. Giunchigliani,
Chairman, Assembly Committee on
Labor and Management
DATE: ___________________________
??
Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
Assembly Committee on Labor and Management
February 4, 1993
Page 1