A Lot of White Noise

Thursday, December 24, 2009 | 0

By Julius Young

The coming weeks will be interesting in California workers' comp.

We'll see what the Schwarzenegger administration does to fill the seat on the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board that is soon to be vacated by Commissioner Ronnie Caplane. Caplane is termed out unless reappointed.

We'll see if the California Court of Appeal 6th District grants a rehearing in the XYZZ case it recently decided. In that case the court adopted the most expansive interpretation of the start date for COLA calculations on injuries rated at 70% or above.

We'll see if federal health care reform appears likely. And if so, we'll get a better look at the details and how those might affect the workers' comp landscape.

Meanwhile, I'll soon be posting my take on the "10 Top Developments in California Workers' Comp in 2009". And I'll be announcing the winner of my contest, "Calling All Soothsayers, Take the Quiz" which was posted in January:
http://www.workerscompzone.com/index.php?m

But meanwhile, back to that Senate health care debate.

A year ago, who'd a thunk Keith Olbermann, the Daily Kos, Howard Dean and Arianna Huffington would be upset with the Obama effort on health care reform? But it has happened. Some unions are wavering in their support.

It was predictable that conservative leaning pundits such as Dick Morris (former adviser to Bill Clinton) would attack the plan. Here's Morris channeling Alfred Lord Tennyson in an op-ed piece, "The Charge of the 280 Dems":
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/12/09/_the_charge_of_the_280_dems_99475.html

But Howard Dean, who only recently was head of the Democratic National Committee?

In case you missed it, here is the Washington Post op-ed piece penned by Howard Dean, "Health Care Bill Wouldn't Bring Real Reform":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html?sub

The White House charged that Dean's conclusions are off the mark.

But with the bill details being so murky, who's to know? As of now, it appears that the insurance industry and big Pharma are the big winners.

After all, the White House did not support the Dorgan amendment which would have allowed importation of lower cost drugs from Canada. They apparently were unwilling to raise the ire of Big Pharma after striking a deal earlier this year with Pharma lobbyist Billy Tauzin.

Is that the deal making of the "ones we have been waiting for?"

As I've noted before, whatever emerges in the Senate will then go to conference with the House healthcare reform. So the process would spill over into January or February anyway.

It seems to come down to this. Shall one hold one's nose and support the reform effort, knowing that much further vetting will occur? Knowing that there will be a CBO analysis of the Senate bill and a CBO analysis of the House-Senate conference committee product.

Talking to a politically astute friend today, I was admonished that if this fails no U.S. president will take up the reform mantle again. That seems to be the talking point for supporters. Obama himself said as much.

In response, I pointed out that reforms often have unintended consequences. Take the 2004 SB 899 workers' comp reforms. Union leaders who signed on to the SB 899 reforms have publicly expressed regrets at many of the unintended consequences of the reforms which have reduced benefits for many workers.

Could Senate Democrats be headed towards reforms which are poorly thought out? It's a concern. In talking to my friend, I noted that Democrats need to make sure all the reform components work smoothly.

If the result is less coverage, higher premiums, hassles over penalties for folks who can't or won't buy insurance, we'll have a major debacle on our hands. If the result is a lot of pissed off seniors, Democrats will surely suffer major losses at the polls.

That's why it's reassuring to know that any bill will go to House-Senate conference for further analysis. But at the end of the day I've got to support a bill which prohibits exclusions based on pre-exisitng exclusions and which expands coverage to many of the uninsured.

If...and only if....the numbers aren't adding to the deficit. That's why those CBO reports are critical.

A paper posed on the University of California, Berkeley Labor Center website claims that both the House and Senate bill will positively affect employees with health insurance. It's the sort of detailed study that's reassuring for those who are searching for facts amid the white noise of the debate.

And here's an interesting chart on how some of the swing senators are voting on key amendments:
http://healthtopic.nationaljournal.com/2009/12/webb-not-afraid-to-cross-aisle.php

Julius Young is an applicants' attorney for the Oakland law firm of Boxer & Gerson. This column was reprinted with his permission from his blog, http:www.workerscompzone.com