MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE AND LABOR
Sixty-seventh Session
January 20, 1993
The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor was called to order by Chairman Randolph J. Townsend, at 8:30 a.m., on Wednesday, January 20, 1993, in Room 227 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster.
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
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst
Sheri Asay, Senate Committee Secretary
Denise Pinnock, Senate Committee Secretary
Frank Krajewski, Senior Research Analyst
OTHERS PRESENT:
Blackie Evans, Secretary and Treasurer, State of Nevada American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO)
Dan Thompson, Lobbyist, AFL-CIO
Tom Nelson, Lobbyist, W.R., Gibbens, Inc.
Don Jayne, General Manager, Nevada State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS)
Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Industrial Relations
(DIR)
Scott Young, General Counsel, SIIS
Jim Jeppson, Administrator, Division of Industrial Insurance
Regulation (DIIR), DIR
Holly Jensen, Administrator, Division of Preventative Safety (DPS), DIR
Donna L. Lewis, Administrator, Division of Enforcement for Industrial Safety (DEISH), DIR
Ron Swirzcek, Administrator, Division of Administrative Services (DAS), DIR
Sheri Newberry, Certified Rehabilitation Counselor, DIIR, DIR
Chairman Townsend opened the meeting with the announcement that Carol Jackson, from the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) and a number of her division heads would be arriving at the meeting in 45 minutes. He introduced Blackie Evans, State of Nevada, American Federation of Labor of Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), and Dan Thompson, also of AFL-CIO.
Mr. Evans discussed his background with workers' compensation, and cited problems that the system is having, specifically the time jump from 9 to 22 weeks an injured worker spends on workers' compensation.
Mr. Evans pointed out that many states have looked at Nevada as a model system for workers' compensation. He stated that although we have a fair and equitable system, major legislation with cash benefits for workers has not been passed in years. He then stressed he was there to work with the legislature. Mr. Evans mentioned the SIIS deficit, noting the money does not belong to the employers of Nevada, nor the legislature, but to the injured workers.
Mr. Evans discussed the lack of health insurance for most Nevada workers. AFL-CIO should be able to contract with medical groups and hospitals and still have flexibility for the injured worker to choose his/her own physician, according to Mr. Evans. He spoke of Oregon's workers' compensation system in regards to their ability to choose their own physician.
Mr. Evans strongly objected to the plan to cut benefits 50 percent in order to balance the State Industrial Insurance System (SIIS). He maintained that the problems SIIS faces were not because of benefits paid to the injured worker, but because of the medical profession and the system itself.
Senator Ann O'Connell asked for an idea of what kind of managed care would be acceptable to Mr. Evans.
Mr. Evans replied he had been getting input from providers of coordinated care programs, and had a draft done of what would be acceptable to the injured worker in Nevada. He hoped to negotiate with doctors, hospitals and other medical providers for lower rates. Mr. Evans explained the injured worker would have the option of choosing from several physicians, but only those who agreed to the fee schedule negotiated.
Senator O'Connell asked what limit the AFL-CIO would be agreeable to regarding the number of physicians they could choose from, and how many other visits the injured worker would be allowed to have if they were not satisfied with the results of the first visit.
Mr. Evans replied there had to be enough doctors to have a choice, particularly if the patient and the doctor did not seem to get along. Mr. Evans added that the workers have had the choice of treating physicians in Nevada since 1932 or 1933. He expressed concern over the different figures various agencies had come up with regarding the SIIS deficit.
Senator Ray Shaffer asked Mr. Evans if he could accept the Oregon managed care plan.
Mr. Evans concurred.
Senator Shaffer asked if the State of Nevada could reference that plan.
Mr. Evans responded affirmatively, adding that his counterparts in Oregon and Washington offered to testify in Nevada as to what is occurring in their states regarding managed health care. He pointed out that this had not been voted on by the AFL-CIO convention, however.
Senator Townsend stated the committee would be dealing with the subject of managed care next week. Senator Townsend referred to the Oregon plan in that it specifically precluded soft tissue as a compensable injury among other things possibly beneficial to the injured worker. He asked if AFL-CIO would be comfortable with that direction.
Mr. Evans discussed the burden of "stress claims" on the system. He cited extreme cases which required consideration, and how there needs to be a balance between those cases and other trivial stress claims. Mr. Evans related a personal experience he had had with an injury several years ago, to express his concern with doctors who wanted to operate unnecessarily.
Senator Townsend asked Mr. Evans about Comprehensive Integrated Workups (CIWs). He had never heard anything positive from injured workers or employers regarding CIWs and said they are possibly at the wrong end of the treatment.
Senator Townsend asked if Mr. Evans knew of any jurisdiction
that would do a better initial workup, to save time and money in the long run.
Mr. Evans remarked he always had problems with CIWs, adding that CIWs were very expensive and had little benefit for the worker or employer.
Senator Townsend brought up the situation of a worker not responding to treatment and going from one doctor to another, and wondered where the line should be drawn.
Mr. Evans said it was a problem nationwide. He cited another case where a woman was injured and the problem could not be found for over a year. Everyone thought she was just trying to beat the system, until a visit to her dentist showed the injury had cracked her jaw; a nerve fell into the crack and caused blinding headaches.
Dan Thompson, AFL-CIO, added the company the woman worked for finally terminated her. She had passed out at work and they thought she was faking it. A single mother of two, she lost everything she had. She filed suit, eventually settling out of court.
Senator Townsend asked if she sued the medical practitioners who misdiagnosed her.
Mr. Evans replied, "She sued everybody." Dan Thompson agreed.
Senator Townsend wondered if the CIWs might not be at the wrong end of the medical scale.
Senator Shaffer said that the case just recited was not the norm, but 15 months of testimony has shown that the person may see numerous physicians without results. In his opinion the physicians kept the person in the system to collect more money. Senator Shaffer pointed out that the physicians were getting 100 percent of the dollar - no deductibles, no co-payments, so why not pass the injured worker around to as many people as possible?
Dan Thompson stated he is on the DIR advisory board which has held several hearings on implementing a serious utilization review, to deal with the kind of problems previously mentioned. Mr. Thompson added SIIS does utilization review, but the costs they incur are not going to the injured worker. He said meaningful utilization review would stop fraudulent practices on both sides.
Mr. Evans expressed concern about opening up copayment procedure, because it may invite a lawsuit.
Senator Townsend replied that there would be a shared premium, noting in Washington State 50 percent is paid by the employer, and 50 percent by the employee. He emphasized a deductible does not affect an employee until they are injured, whereas a shared premium affects them every month. Senator Townsend wondered if there were incentives to get back to work. "As a result of those changes, how do we give a benefit to those legitimately injured?" he asked.
Mr. Evans stated 97 percent of the workers are legitimately injured and want to get back to work, and do not want to remain on workers' compensation.
Senator Townsend said anything done on the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor would be done prospectively, not going back into past claims. Better utilization review alone would save the state 15 percent of $145 million, he said.
Mr. Evans said self-insurers have 150 percent less claims per examiner than does SIIS.
Senator Townsend asked Mr. Evans to get a legitimate estimate, explaining the assembly has argued there are not enough examiners per claim. He said the question arose, should the system be allowed to hire?
Mr. Evans stated the problem was slowly being alleviated.
Senator Shaffer cited a figure, from testimony of the past year, that 25 percent of the work force covered by compensation file claims. He stated that number was way out of proportion, if it were true.
Mr. Evans agreed, adding the committee needs to look at the situation of a person being uninsured who gets hurt at home, knows he cannot pay health costs, and claims he was hurt at work. It may not be legal, but it is understandable, he said.
Senator Nevin drew attention to the figures of $2 million SIIS is losing per week, asking how long SIIS can continue to operate if we come up with a program that takes 18-24 months to implement.
Mr. Evans replied, "If you get the cash flow system under control, stop taking money out of investment portfolios so it can be drawing interest, as we have for all these years, we can slowly work our way out of the problem." The $2.2 billion deficit does not have to be paid today, he pointed out. This is money owed, and hopefully it can be worked out over 10 to 20 years time, without burdening the employer, without state government bailing out, or a poll tax taken to pay off workers' compensation, suggested Mr. Evans. He said it is an actuarial debt, and added we can work with the medical profession among other things. According to actuaries, there can still be cost increases on a slower basis, and we can work our way out of this situation, concluded Mr. Evans.
A discussion ensued on the continuing problem of people who can afford to self-insure leaving the system. For everyone who leaves the system, Senator Nevin pointed out, those who cannot afford to get out receive the increase in premiums. Small businesses will be put out of business as a result, he added.
Senator Nevin mentioned a rumor he heard that the state is considering self-insuring. "If this is true, that does not put a lot of confidence in SIIS," he remarked.
Senator Shaffer asserted it was up to the committee that everyone gain confidence in SIIS before leaving here. He cited a situation where a company with 1300 employees went self-insured. Their premium was substantially reduced, and that made it attractive for everyone to want out.
Don Jayne, General Manager, SIIS, said it would be interesting to get a comparison of when the laws were passed that established the thresholds of people to go self-insured. Those laws have not been changed since then, he noted.
Mr. Jayne said the main problem they are wrestling with today is the long tail in workers' compensation. The lost dollars paid out in the first year of self-insurance is only $87,000 compared to $200,000, he explained. "The second year you have those claims and more, and the third year you have the first two years claims and more," he added.
Senator Townsend asked if there was a recommendation in the business plan to eliminate the tail, so an employer who leaves to become self-insured takes his claims with him.
Mr. Jayne responded:
The recommendations in the plan we worked on with the legislative committee was modified slightly. It is not so much the reopening of claims when talking of this kind of tail. The average workers' compensation claim, when you get involved in the tail, goes out three to five years, but once a claim is closed we can legislatively shut it down or modify it. Even without the lifetime reopening we have the 3- to 5-year tail on the average to pick up the aggregate dollars for the claim. You cannot just look at one year. You have to look at when the claim is closed and stays closed, whereas today there is a lifetime reopening.
Senator Townsend remarked one of the attractive things about going self-insured is leaving all the problems behind.
Mr. Jayne agreed, when a self-insured leaves today, liabilities are left with the system.
Senator O'Connell asked for someone self-insured in the room to come up and address this issue.
Tom Nelson, W.R. Gibbens, Inc., responded:
When an employer leaves the state system and becomes self-insured, if they were in a retrospective rating plan they would still be liable for some costs that could be out there. If they were in an estimated standard plan they would not have that, with the exception, as those claims continue to move, they are paying an assessment on that to begin with once they are outside of SIIS. They are assessed on losses for three years through the insurance commissioner and other things, based on those losses that occurred while they were in the state system. They do not have any direct responsibility to a particular claim, per se, unless that was a valuable employee they still want to carry on through.
"But in those type assessments," Mr. Jayne pointed out, "they still pay an assessment, plus they paid premiums to cover those claims when they were in the state system. As in any private insurance company, if you have a claim with an insurance company and you move to another insurance company, that prior insurance company is still responsible for that claim. It should not be held liable over here," he added.
Senator O'Connell related a situation a constituent called her about. The person had become self-insured and was still being assessed for an injured worker who is now working two jobs in another state.
Mr. Jayne said he would like to have specifics to check on that situation.
Senator Townsend asked if SIIS had ever considered allowing a licensed professional insurance individual to sell SIIS policies.
"Not three-way," he added.
Mr. Jayne replied SIIS had performed an initial cost benefit analysis and concluded it did not appear cost-effective to go outside of the system at this point. He added it could be an option to have a lot of the work they do in the policy-holder services area performed by agents outside the system.
Senator Townsend discussed the problem of employers not having an adequate description of what a retroactive plan might be versus a normal premium paid plan, adding the employer needs to know what the financial responsibility is when something occurs.
Mr. Evans commented the first year for the self-insured is great. But the claims add up and get more expensive after that, he noted. Mr. Evans said he did not want to balance the SIIS deficit at the expense of the workers.
There was a general discussion on accident prevention, and
Senator Townsend said the number one priority of several committees last session was a public education program to proclaim safety the number one issue in the State of Nevada. The program was stopped by individuals who deemed it an improper awarding contract.
Senator Townsend referred to the schedule of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor hearings for the next two weeks (Exhibit C). He said the committee would discuss managed care, Preferred Provider Organizations (PPO) and Health Maintenance Organizations (HMO), fraud and loss-control & prevention, noting SIIS is probably understaffed in that area. "Loss-control is where the savings are," he said, adding northern Nevada companies who use loss-control substantially reduce their claims.
The chairman recessed the meeting for a break at 9:40 a.m. and reconvened at 9:55 a.m.
Senator Townsend asked Carol Jackson, Director, Department of Industrial Relations (DIR), to discuss the basic outline of her department and the various divisions (Exhibit D), focusing on the area of rehabilitation, noting the state has gone in four years from $15 million in rehabilitation costs to $75 million. He reminded her one of her charges as a result of Senate Bill (S.B.) 7 of the Sixty-sixth Session and all the interim hearings was to
get a better handle on the regulatory side of that.
SENATE BILL 7 OF THE
SIXTY-SIXTH SESSION: Makes various changes relating to industrial insurance and other rights of employees.
Carol Jackson said that beginning in August, DIR conducted workshops, inviting self-insured employers and SIIS to talk about regulations, and asked for written statements as well from both, she said. Since then, she added, DIR drafted regulations, covering a 10-year span they were trying to correct.
Senator Townsend asked ..."are we going to buy businesses anymore, are we going to buy new cars, new vans, new ventures...or has that been addressed in those regs?"
Ms. Jackson replied self-employment was originally deleted from the regulations, and put back in at the request of SIIS.
Senator Townsend said that was a major stumbling block and asked Don Jayne, General Manager of SIIS, why he wanted self-employment in.
Scott Young, General Counsel of SIIS, said the law still allowed for self-employment programs, but they could no longer be ordered. Because self-employment programs can still be done, he said, SIIS thought it was appropriate that there still be some regulations. When a self-employment program is necessary, SIIS can show there are some parameters in discussions with the individual. Mr. Young recalled discussions of last year regarding paraplegics or quadriplegics. There may be times when the only way these people can be successfully rehabilitated is to go into some form of self- employment.
Mr. Young said he thought the American Disabilities Act (ADA) will have significant impact on rehabilitation, because of the obligations it imposes on employers to make reasonable accommodations for people, which would include injured workers. He said he did not know, however, that the ADA would necessarily have specific impact on a self-employment program.
Senator O'Connell asked Mr. Young for language from SIIS that narrowly defines parameters for that statute.
Senator Nevin agreed, and said one of the problems is that if you make an exception to the rule you have set a precedent that will be a setback. He added the injured worker's new enterprise should be in line with what he did prior to the injury.
Scott Young said problems occur because of unreasonable expectations of what rehabilitation will do for a person. SIIS is working with the DIR to develop new regulations that will narrow the range of rehabilitation services available, he explained.
Senator O'Connell said this was important it be spelled out in the law. She explained, "Should a case be taken to the Supreme Court, and should we not be able to change the way they liberally interpret the law, we don't want any misunderstanding as to what the intent of the legislature was."
There was a discussion of placement agencies versus vocational rehabilitation agencies. "When you have a placement agency who gets a fixed amount, they do the same as a voc rehab person who is charging the system 5 to 6 thousand dollars," explained Senator Townsend, adding, "We think a lot of people are getting paid unfairly."
Ms. Jackson said Sheri Newberry, a certified rehab counselor who works in the Division of Industrial Insurance Regulation, (DIIR) and Jim Jeppson, Administrator, DIIR, have been working on rehabilitation regulations. There was a meeting of self-insured employers and DIR took a lot of their comments under consideration, according to Ms. Jackson.
Ms. Jackson said there may be things that SIIS wants in the regulations that DIR sees no reason to put in, such as, you will not buy cars or pools. That should be in their internal procedure, not the regulatory agency putting it in the regulations, according to Ms. Jackson.
Ms. Jackson continued her discussion of the regulations. She said DIR identified the problems with the vocational rehabilitation process, through audits and complaints from large employers. They cited lack of case management, multiple rehabilitation programs for the same claimant on the same claim, job development for extended periods of time and then requesting a rehabilitation lump-sum buyout, lack of incentives available to employers to return injured workers to work and lack of early vocational rehabilitation intervention.
What DIR is trying to accomplish with these regulations, according to Ms. Jackson, is to require early intervention on a claim. She added DIR has also asked for the employer, medical provider and injured worker to become involved in the claim at the very beginning of rehabilitation. "We tried to emphasize a return to work with the pre-accident employer," she explained, "rather than starting the claimant in a rehab program. We've also tried to limit the amount of time that a claimant can have maintenance to a maximum of 18 months." Some have drawn a lot longer than that, Ms. Jackson noted, and are still not in wage earning capacity, so DIR is trying to address that problem. They also tried to limit expenses for travel and relocation while in a rehabilitation program, and limit eligibility for rehabilitation when the injured worker has previous education and training as identified, she added. The regulations do not address lump-sum buyouts, said Ms. Jackson, and that whole section has been taken out.
Senator Townsend inquired about the Governor's reorganization plan. Ms. Jackson responded the DIR would stay intact, as well as the Department of Mines. Administrative Services and the Department for Preventative Safety may lose a position. She said her understanding was the director will be able to adjust positions.
A discussion took place on the number of DIR employees and whether they are federally funded. Carol Jackson said there are 120 employees statewide. Brian Davie, Senior Research Analyst, Research Division, Legislative Counsel Bureau, said DIIR has 34 employees statewide. Holly Jensen, DPS administrator, listed 14, all federally funded. Donna Lewis, Administrator, Division of Enforcement for Industrial Safety (DEISH) listed 52 employees, 11 non-federally funded. She said they had one full-time clerk and a 50 percent professional employee charged off against income of the asbestos program.
Senator Townsend asked about the 14 federally-funded positions of the DPS. He noted DEISH had 41 positions, asking if it were true there were three times as many enforcers as preventers.
Donna Lewis responded affirmatively, explaining, "Up until 1981 or '82, the SIIS loss-control people were in our division and were totally NIC funded. Then we were split," she said. She pointed out the federal program historically only supported enforcement until the mid 1970s, consultation and training with employers being added later.
Ron Swirzcek, Administrator, Division of Administrative Services (DAS) said under the reorganization proposal the DAS will be combined with other administrative services functions of those agencies to be combined. In effect, there would be one support unit for all functions under the new department of business and industry. Currently DAS has eight employees assigned to it.
Senator Townsend asked for an explanation of Exhibit E, which was handed out by Jim Jeppson. Mr. Jeppson informed the committee he would just highlight key issues of the 15-page document. (See Exhibit E)
There was discussion on the lengthy form employers were required to fill out. Mr. Jeppson said there was now a checklist document which makes it less of a burden on the employer than would appear in the regulations.
Senator Nevin stressed there was too much paperwork involved in this system. "We need to make it easier for employers and employees to get their papers in and get them filed...," he said.
Carol Jackson said, "...the only difficulty I can see with eliminating some of the paperwork, is if you go for a hearing and there's no record that yes, the insurer did do exactly what they said, if there's no document in the file or no document to submit on appeal, then that's when you'd run into difficulty just doing a more verbal authorization."
Senator Nevin asked how Section 5 (Exhibit E) would affect the current staff. "Would it eliminate them and keep everyone in house?" he asked. Mr. Jeppson replied, "No, it would leave everything in house. The system has several employees that have obtained the certification or advanced degrees specified in Section 5. The ones that do not must be supervised by a counselor who has this type of training." Ms. Jackson pointed out the outside vendors are also required to have certification.
Mr.Jeppson continued his discussion of Exhibit E. Section 6 deals with allowable relocation expenses when an injured worker has to be relocated to obtain vocational rehabilitation services, he said.
Senator Townsend asked if any of the relocations were going to be out of state, or was that prohibited. Mr. Jeppson replied it is not prohibited, but it does require instate programs be utilized if available. When exceptional circumstances exist, such as very serious disabilities which are defined later in the regulations, then out-of-state programs will be used.
Senator Townsend asked if a rehabilitation candidate wanted to train for something the State of Nevada had no market for, would they have the right to go to a state where there is such a market. Mr. Jeppson said there was no specific prohibition in there.
Senator Townsend inquired about the $600 expenditure allotted for vocational rehabilitation program development. Mr. Jeppson responded there is a period of time when the counselor works with the injured worker to determine what type of program would be best suited to the injured worker.
Senator Townsend said "Let me guess, it's always $600. It's always the max, let me just guess that. Is that a fair assumption?"
Mr. Jeppson responded, "Well, there's no max in place at this time. So this does introduce a maximum."
Senator Nevin asked, "The $1000 while participating, is that above and beyond any of the money they are getting?"
Jim Jeppson said it was an additional expense for which they can be reimbursed. He explained if the injured worker has to travel to participate in a program, they are reimbursed per mile similar to what state employees are reimbursed. Right now insurers are reimbursing claimants for their mileage, he said.
Carol Jackson stated this section was put in at the request of SIIS who asked for some caps similar to what is required of state employees.
Senator Townsend asked if this is for the injured worker's expense.
Ms. Jackson said yes, but they have to justify it on the sheets they are required to turn in.
Senator O'Connell mentioned the expenses SIIS incurs are sometimes three to four times what other states are paying and asked for a comparison.
Sheri Newberry said our rates are comparable adding this is the first time we have ever put any limitations in the regulations.
Jim Jeppson referred back to the discussion of Exhibit E. Senator Townsend asked what the average rehabilitation time is. Ms. Newberry gave a range of six months to five years and beyond, four or five years being extreme cases, she pointed out. Ms. Newberry explained a person may enter a rehabilitation program which fails them. The person may enter another program which also fails. This pattern may go on for a long period of time, she explained.
When asked by Senator Townsend, "Who failed?" Ms. Newberry explained it could be the claimant not having the proper skills or aptitude for the training program. Senator Townsend asked if this goes back to the rehabilitation counselor who placed them in a bad program.
Ms. Newberry said, "That happens frequently."
Senator Townsend asked if SIIS still reimburses the rehabilitation counselor.
Ms. Newberry said yes, they are employees of the system, or private rehabilitation counselors...
Senator Townsend asked, "Why would you reimburse someone when they failed?" Ms. Newberry explained the new regulations would eliminate that, adding the injured worker would receive a maximum 18 months of rehabilitation maintenance.
Senator Townsend expressed concern over the rehabilitation counselors improperly placing people. Whether the counselors were employed by the state or privately, it is unfair to the injured worker as well as the premium payer, he said.
Ms. Newberry brought up the situation of employees who make $20 to $30 per hour. When they are injured they may be retrained and they now get $7 or $8 per hour, she said. They end up going right back to their former line of work, according to Ms. Newberry.
Senator Townsend said it was because of unrealistic expectations. "If you have an iron worker, and that's what he is capable of doing and that's what he wants to do, you can't turn around and make him a brain surgeon, if he doesn't want to be a brain surgeon."
Ms. Newberry responded in some cases where you know you will not have a successful rehabilitation outcome, SIIS and other insurers should be looking for the lump-sum buyout. It is a waste of money otherwise, because even if they complete the training and get into a $7- or $8-per-hour job, they may not be able to live on that. They will not stay in that job, resulting in a costly repetitive cycle, she said.
Senator Townsend asked if that process was going to be stopped.
Carol Jackson responded SIIS assured them with new prototype teams it should stop, and Don Jayne of SIIS told DIR they are really trying to get a handle on it.
Senator Townsend said there is an ongoing debate whether or not to eliminate the repetitive process, cut the claimant a check and discontinue the claim. It might not save money, the system may only break even, but it will provide better service to the claimant, he said. Senator Townsend explained the claimant can then figure out what they want to do with future training, education and so forth.
Carol Jackson said they discussed that with SIIS also.
There was general discussion on the problem of extended rehabilitation programs. Senator Shaffer related a personal experience in which he tried to retrain three different people to be field inspectors. They all had back injuries. After three months they discovered they were reinjuring their backs getting in and out of the car. One would not have known that initially from the job description, he said. He then refused to accept any more workers to retrain with back injuries, but no one else in the system had figured that out. "I'm sure this is one of the reasons why you get into a more extended rehab program," said Senator Shaffer.
Ms. Newberry concluded the problem would be alleviated by the 18-month cap.
Senator Brown discussed the problem of employees not liking their job and wanting to be retrained. She asked if the 18-month cap could be set aside for a paraplegic or someone who needed longer rehabilitation.
Ms. Newberry said there were extenuating circumstances, adding minor claims receiving extended rehabilitation were the problem.
Mr. Jeppson continued with Section 11 (Exhibit E) which covers limitations on injured workers' ability to return to work. Section 12 identifies existing job skills.
Senator Townsend asked if a comparison had been done on rehabilitation regulations in other states.
Sheri Newberry said yes, particularly Oregon. She discussed Oregon's plan and noted the key was working with the pre-accident employer to see if the injured worker could do a modified job, or light duty. Selling the doctors and providers on this program was critical, she said.
Senator Brown asked what would occur if after ninety days a person could not find a job in a pre-trained area, perhaps because of the economy. She wondered if there were provisions to deal with that.
Sheri Newberry said the two options were training and a rehabilitation lump-sum buyout. The best plan is getting them back with the pre-accident employer, she said.
Senator Nevin asked about the fact that the state has no light-duty program. Carol Jackson replied DIR would work on that.
Senator Townsend mentioned SIIS presently has over 39,000 accounts. He noted expenditures of $440 million last year. Of those accounts, 509 drove 20% of the expenditures. The committee discussed teleconferencing in Room ll9, and suggested money could be saved for those coming from Las Vegas with teleconferencing.
Senator Townsend adjourned the meeting at 11:45 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Sheri Asay,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
January 20, 1993
Page 1