Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Letters to the Editor



Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints

OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS NEEDED

Dear Editor,

Peter Rousmaniere's articles on state funds, "An Analysis of Arrogance," (Risk & Insurance®, April 1, 2005, page 28) do not display objective analysis. It appears that the writer had a conclusion in mind and then selectively advanced arguments to support his criticisms of the California State Fund.

An objective analysis would have included an examination of three key facts.

Open rating led to cutthroat competition by private carriers. Ultimately, approximately 30 of these carriers, who did not display the judgment and discipline espoused by Rousmaniere, failed.That placed a huge burden on the California Insurance Guarantee Association, and it produced the growth experienced by SCIF.

Rates did go up, and as Rousmaniere must know, there are many factors in play. Benefit increases, medical inflation, the rate of utilization and the attitude of courts, to name a few, had more to do with increased rates than did insurance company pricing decisions.

To say that SCIF could have acted with greater restraint in pricing is to wholly ignore the pressure exerted by the Insurance Commissioner's office. His directives were draconian and left SCIF no choice other than to increase prices dramatically.

Rousmaniere has raised some questions that are worthy of examination, but if he wants to encourage a meaningful debate, he needs to present all the facts.

Lynn Armstrong, ARM

Vice President, Workers' Compensation

Anchor Insurance & Surety Inc.

Portland, Ore.

OPINION LACKING BALANCE

Dear Editor,

While your concerns about the efficacy and implications of drug therapy in pain management are well placed (Risk & Insurance®, July 2005, page 14), you appear to dismiss the need for an appropriate prescription of pain medication over the long term.

I can attest to the fact that it is possible that such a medication regimen may permit an individual to continue to be a productive member of society. I suggest a more balanced consideration of this subject shouldrecognizecontinuing pain medication as an appropriate option.

Here is a case study. A 60-year-old female in good health twisted her back. A two-month bed rest was prescribed by her internist. Conservative treatment failed to produce relief. She was operatedat Massachusetts General Hospitalby anorthopedic surgeon to remove disc material. Pain persisted and she was referred to the MGH Pain Clinic where varioustechniques failed to yield relief. She was given a heavy dosage of Neurontin and Oxycontin four times a day. Although under the care of her internist, she has had follow-up evaluations by the MGH Pain Clinic over the past 10 yearsreceiving theirconcurrence to maintain the level of medication. At age 70 she continues to operate a successful retail enterprise although with some limitation as far as standing and walking is concerned. Her dosage has been maintained at a constant level during this 10-year period.

While this may not be seen as a prototypical treatment, it should be recognized as one successfulstrategy for return to work where further surgical intervention does not appear to be an option.

Cornelius N. Bakker Jr.

President

Independent Schools Compensation Corporation

September 1, 2005

Copyright 2005© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.