Privacy Policy About Us Contact Us
corporate wellness, corporate health services
home dots total solutions dots employee health programs dots Medical Surveillance Programs success stories dots publications dots news dots restaurant health dots client resources
Stay up to date with the very latest news and resources. Check out our blog.
THE CORPORATE WELLNESS BLOG

Archive for the ‘Legislative Update’ Category

Obama’s Aggressive Agenda for Healthcare Reform

Tuesday, April 7th, 2009

Word has is that President Obama wants a vote on his health care reform plan before Congress recesses for summer.  It is an aggressive timeline …

Our health care reform gold star of the week goes to Congressman John Hall who proposes that Congress itself participate in whatever health care plan is passed .  Congressman Hall subscribes to the theory – if it’s good enough for you., it’s good enough for us  Hat’s off to him for this proactive approach for staving off critics of the yet to be fully designed plan.

Our health care reform black mark of the week goes to Richard Scott; founder of Columbia/HC who has formed the group Conservatives for Patients Right and raised nearly $20 million to fight President Obama’s plan.  Keep in mind that Mr. Scott is the same man who was ousted from the company he founded after the FBI raided five Columbia Hospitals and three executives were indicted for systemic Medicare fraud.  Seems that he’s the wrong guy to be telling us we’re wrong in trying to fix this mess he helped create.

The bottom line is that fixing health care is key to righting the economy.  They are inextricably intertwined.  We cannot move forward without some kind of health care reform.  Obama’s plan may not be perfect, might not even be close, but at least it is a start.  And you have to start somewhere.

DOT New Collection Rules – or Not?

Friday, August 29th, 2008

The DOT announced new collection rules were to become effective August 26th and then, in a surprising move, delayed the implementation of a large portion of the new rules until November 1st.  The new rules relate to observed collections  on return to work and follow up tests.

In that past, observed collections were only required in a handful of circumstances and realistically, are relatively rare.  Under the new rules, they will be much more common – presenting new challenges for medical facilities, patient service centers and  collection sites.  Collection sites were very much the focal point of the May 2008 GAO report where drivers reported that cheating on collections was more common than previously thought.

The implementation delay does add a level of confusion to an already burdened nationwide collection system.  Since the postponementwas to extend the comment period, it is likely there will be additional delay beyond the new November date if comments were to raise issues that must be addressed prior to roll out.

Some critics call the new rules draconian – requiring those drivers who are having return to duty or follow up screens to raise shirts above waists and lower underwear.  We’ve seen many kinds of home-made or internet purchased devices; designed to sneak a urine specimen into the bathroom.  But not terribly often and usually among non-DOT regulated donors. 

So, here we sit, having prepared collection sites nationally for new procedures, and then advising them that most are on hold.  Stay tuned….

 For additional information:

 http://www.jacksonlewis.com/legalupdates/article.cfm?aid=1467

 http://www.littler.com/PressPublications/Lists/ASAPs/DispAsaps.aspx?id=1278

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling supports Preplacement exams

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008

As we had hoped, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision that held UPS liable for making sure its drivers could hear before driving. Seems a bit silly that they had to go to all the way to the Appeals level for that ruling, doesn’t it?

The earlier ruling by a three judge panel, also in the Ninth Circuit, told employers that they couldn’t screen prospective employees to ensure they could safely perform the essential functions of their jobs if they were screening for conditions that might be considered disabilities.So, according to the original ruling – knowing that employees can see or hear to identify safety hazards around them wasn’t considered as important as making sure they weren’t discriminated against if they couldn’t see or hear.

(more…)