To Whom It May Concern,

We have been advised that the Alberta WCB has proposed changes to Policy 07-02, Part II, Application 3- the Partnership in Injury Reduction (PIR) program- that will become effective as of January 1, 2012. Under this proposal, employers could earn a fixed incentive in addition to the regular incentive earned under the PIR program, provided they meet a threshold of workers with lost time claimsparticipating in a suitable modified work program. Ultimately, this means that by using monetary incentives the WCB is encouraging employers to offer modified work to injured employees to cut down claim duration, claim costs, and force workers back to work sooner. It is projected that these additional refunds will amount to between $5 million and $9 million back to employers who have 80% or more of their workers on a modified work program.

Our concerns with these proposed changes to policy continue to be the impact they will consequently have on injured workers. What we identify as a change that will have a negative impact on workers, WCB has instead identified the positive impact that these changes will have on employer’s cost savings. The changes are not directed towards ensuring a safe return to work, rather a rapid return to work. The WCB pushes for an expedient return to work on time loss claims thus the worker may be subject to return to work- but not based on substantial medical reporting and their readiness to return to work but rather based on the WCB meeting goals of time limits and cost cutting. An incentive program to return these workers back to work is the wrong approach. More medical consultation, rehabilitation, and vocational services are required rather than pushing for an often unsafe return to work. The return to work planning should be a separate entity from that of an incentive program for employers.

Now let us look at some additional issues with the proposed changes to the PIR program. What happens to those employers who cannot achieve these goals perhaps due to a lack of appropriate modified work to fit the worker’s restrictions? Ultimately, they will be reprimanded because they will not have any incentives paid to them even though it is of no fault of their own. This may further encourage employers to push workers into inappropriate modified work beyond their work restrictions or may even encourage employers to conceal claims to avoid penalties or having to provide modified work altogether. Furthermore, what about subsequent layoffs due to return to work failures and recurrent injuries from not being healed yet or from working beyond their limits? The recurrence of injury due to the escalated return to work and poor medical management is not addressed. What happens to this refund if the employer does not retain the employee in the long run after they return to work? This needs to be measured so employers do not just provide modified work and then dismiss the employee after receiving the benefits of this program. Our interpretation is that there are additional incentives above the 20 % that are intended to be paid to employers if they follow the protocol. Why are these incentives not directly going into health and safety programs in the company or for the injured workers to take more health and safety programs? Perhaps these incentives should be paid to the injured workers for meeting their return to work goals rather than going into the pockets of the employers.

This back door approach to having the policy changed as soon as possible ensures those that benefit from the change are notified while the public and other stakeholders are neglected to be involved in the update and the changing of the policy. This WCB proposal specifically has not been advertised or extended openly to the general public or to injured workers as it is an employer policy- even if it may covertly affect injured workers.

The Alberta WCB continually reasserts that a hasty return to work is at the best interest of the injured worker because they are put back in control of their lives. They then continue to state that over the past few years the average claim duration has increased which prevents them from avoiding extended disability. Injuries are becoming more severe, claim duration has increased, and recurrent injuries have generally seen an increase over the past several years. However, the WCB would like their statistics to show lower claims, lower time duration, and lower claims costs while employers enjoy higher refunds and lower premiums. What is the real benefit for the injured worker? The focus has gone from fair compensation and returning workers to their pre accident levels to return to work as soon as possible to cut costs.

We commend the WCB and employers for encouraging formal health and safety programs and preventative measures to ensuring accidents in the workplace are minimized. However, these proposed changes to policy are in direct violation with not only safety but with what’s best for injured workers.  They are not dealing appropriately with the reactive side of workplace injury. These revisions are currently under review by the WCB and will accept feedback up until December12, 2011. Please find attached the proposed changes. We urge you to consider what this policy really will do for injured workers and follow this link to provide your feedback regarding the suggested changes to the PIR program incentives: http://www.wcb.ab.ca/webforms/policy_feedback.asp . You are also able to view the proposed changes here.Thank you for your time and continual commitment to improving the WCB for your constituents.

Regards,

Julie Hallonquist for Gail Cumming

Cumming Consulting Inc.

(780) 470 3999