Tag Archives: Drug Formulary

The Truth Regarding Outcomes in Texas and the Guideline Never Discussed

The Texas workers’ compensation system is again the center of national discussion. Republican House Representatives in Louisiana are proposing the adoption of the binary drug list that Texas made popular resulting from the material reduction in cost and overall decrease of prescription drugs made available to injured workers in the state. However, employee and patient advocates struggle with correlating lower costs and medication prescriptions to a healthier workforce. Denying medical care, without the support of quality scientific evidence, does not guarantee better care and therefore may not result in overall health outcomes.

Texas Commissioner Ryan Brennan submitted a write up published by WorkCompCentral (subscription is required) encouraging the use of the Texas-model formulary by other jurisdictions. While the success of cost savings and reduced medication prescriptions to injured workers in the state is well documented, Commissioner Brennan’s claim that the drug list is responsible for the state’s improvements in return-to-work may not be as cut and dry. The dual adoption of individual commercial return-to-work and treatment guidelines in the state sets a stage worthy of scientific discourse and dramatic findings of deranged recommendations.

Texas’ Choice for Return-To-Work Standards

Texas’ legislated mandate to use return-to-work guidelines is an element of their workers’ compensation system that is usually discussed out of context, or is all together ignored. Leading up to the passage of House Bill 7, which includes the requirement that the Texas DWC adopt return-to-work guidelines in 2005, the state completed a thorough analysis of both ODG, providers of the Texas treatment guidelines and binary drug list, and Reed Group’s Medical Disability Advisor, now MDGuidelines. The state found the Medical Disability Advisor content to be more reliable and based on actual observed claims data wholly tagged by ICD codes and moved forward with adopting the content source to guide return-to-work decisions for injured workers in the state.

Commemorated in the Division of Workers’ Compensation Biennial Report to the 85th Texas Legislature, signed by Commissioner Brennan, Texas’ return-to-work outcomes are driven by the legislative reforms focusing on returning employees to work such as the return-to-work guidelines, return-to-work reimbursement program for employers, improvements in return-to-work outreach efforts, and other return-to-work specific programs. The report also correlates the rebound in return-to-work rates to the state’s economy in 2012 and 2013.

This information is critically important as state regulators and legislators reference the popular report Impact of a Texas-Like Formulary in other States by the Workers Compensation Research Institute and attempt to replicate outcomes experienced in the Texas system. The improvement in duration of disability and return-to-work is not the product of a binary drug list rather a result of a very comprehensive return-to-work effort mandated through legislative reform.

The following is an excerpt from the biennial report available online:

“Not only has the percentage of injured employees who returned to work and remained employed improved since the 2005 legislative reforms, but the amount of time the average injured employee who received TIBs [Temporary Income Benefits] is off work after an injury also decreased from a median of 28‐29 days in 2004‐2005 to 19 days in 2013. The reduction in the number of days off work per claim not only allows employers to quickly restore productivity levels after a work-related injury, it also allows injured employees to regain their wage-earning capacity quicker, helping them avoid severe economic losses as a result of a work-related injury.”

ODG Recommends Return-To-Work for SIDS & Other Pediatric Conditions

ODG claims to have a comprehensive data consortium undergirding its return-to-work guidelines data set as well. So why did Texas choose the Medical Disability Advisor over ODG? The publisher does not describe established standards for exclusion, fails to provide information about diversity with regard to industry or geographic location, and it cites the use of public databases (i.e., CDC NHIS and OSHA) where ICD codes are likely questionable or unavailable.

ODG also asserts its comprehensive guidelines cover every reportable condition and procedure, including over 10,000 ICD-9 codes, 65,000 ICD-10 codes, and 11,000 CPT procedure codes. Rather than screening these codes and providing information about conditions that affect working-age individuals, ODG’s website provides return-to-work summary guidelines for conditions not relevant to the working population:

  • Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (ICD-9 code 798.0)
  • Instantaneous Death (ICD-9 code 798.1)
  • Fussy Infant/Baby (ICD-9 code 780.91)
  • Infant Botulism (ICD-9 code 040.41).

Oddly, a search of ODG’s website using the term “infant” returns numerous conditions for which disability duration data does not exist and return-to-work guidelines are all together inappropriate. These recommendations call into question the source(s) of the numbers provided in the summary guidelines tables.

There is no doubt Texas made the right decision to adopt the Medical Disability Advisor, now MDGuidelines, as its standard for return-to-work over the ODG return-to-work content. The outcomes are irrefutable and a clear result of legislative reforms from 2005, not the savings-focused binary drug list made popular by the state.

However, the realization that the same entity that defines treatment standards for injured workers in Texas also publishes outlandish return-to-work guidance for deceased infants, should prompt severe concern for the quality of the science undergirding every recommendation stemming from the ODG library – treatment and return to work guidelines and drug formulary.

This prompts the question: Do the ODG treatment guidelines and drug formulary meet the definition of evidence-based medicine in the Texas Labor Code?

Texas Labor Code, Section 401.011 (18-a)

“Evidence-based medicine” [EBM] means the use of the current best quality scientific and medical evidence formulated from credible scientific studies, including peer reviewed medical literature and other currently scientifically based texts, and treatment and practice guidelines in making decisions about the care of individual patients.”

The labor code specifies “the use of current best quality scientific and medical evidence formulated from credible scientific studies.” While the State’s definition of EBM is not all together complete, the verbiage indicates the need for the content source to incorporate a transparent systematic review process.

Systematic review ensures the use of the “best” scientific evidence from “credible” sources; it is a core element of evidence-based medicine.

Good-working Systematic Review

As an example, the development of guidelines from the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) utilizes Cochrane systematic reviews, in addition to other scientific systematic reviews that meet or exceed the Institute of Medicine’s (now known as the Academy of Medicine) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research. The ACOEM Guidelines rely on systematic reviews conducted in accordance with the highest standards to provide current guidance on the relevant clinical questions.

Here is how it works: The Research Team conducts exhaustive systematic literature reviews for each guideline topic, and/or research question. In order to identify all high- and moderate-quality original research studies, the literature search is broad and comprehensive.

ACOEM searches PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and Scopus for primary sources of original research. ACOEM also conducts extensive supplementary searches using review articles, systematic reviews, and reference lists of the included and excluded studies. It searches other databases likely to contain references of high quality medical literature, including Google Scholar to identify potential quality, impactful literature that includes the grey literature.

Search strategies and methods are recorded in detail, including specific databases, search terms, number of studies found (e.g., regarding treatment efficacy searches including RCTs and crossover trials). A Search Results section, in paragraph form, is also included as a footnote for each evidence table.

  • The Search Results section includes:
  • Databases searched (that there were no limits on publication dates, limited to English language)
  • Search terms used
  • Number of studies found from all the databases searched
  • Total number of articles screened

– number meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria

– number critically appraised

  • Total number of studies included of high or moderate quality.

Also identified in tables, are studies of low quality.

In formulating the final recommendations, the numbers of studies and the strength of those studies, are all included in summary statements under the “Rationale for Recommendation” section.

The US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Verdict on Texas’ Treatment Guidelines

In June of 2016, Mary Nix, AHRQ Health Science Administrator, stated in a WorkCompCentral interview, “Work Loss Data Institute [publisher of the Texas treatment guidelines a.k.a. Official Disability Guidelines/ODG] didn’t fully explain how it selected studies for its evidence-based review, including the number of studies identified, the number of studies evaluated, and a summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Another Requirement WLDI didn’t meet was to synthesize evidence from the selected studies in a detailed description or evidence table.”

In a separate interview with Business Insurance during the same month in 2016, Nix stated, “We were not able to … assure that the systematic evidence review was conducted for each of the topics that they cover in the ODGs”.

The following is a list of the types of evidence reviewed by ODG as documented in their methodology document available on line:


  1. Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis
  2. Controlled Trial – Randomized (RCT) or Controlled
  3. Cohort Study – Prospective or Retrospective
  4. Case Control Series
  5. Unstructured Review


  1. Nationally Recognized Treatment Guideline (from guidelines.gov)
  2. State Treatment Guideline
  3. Other Treatment Guideline
  4. Textbook
  5. Conference Proceedings/Presentation Slides
  6. Case Reports and Descriptions

None of the “Other” materials reviewed and used by ODG meet the selection criteria for inclusion of any methodology literature-scoring model.

Recommendations for medical care should not be created based on single studies, or sources. Rather, recommendations should be based on the preponderance of evidence systemically gathered, reviewed, graded, summarized and evaluated. These steps are important to ensure the process is reproducible and the recommendations, when established, are valid and supported by the best quality scientific evidence meeting inclusion criteria from credible scientific studies.

The influence of Texas’ return to work standards on outcomes cannot be more apparent. While the evidence that the content underpinning their treatment standards do not meet their Labor Code’s definition of evidence-based medicine is overwhelming. It is a strange case indeed, when states such as Louisiana are specifically seeking to replicate the adoption of tools proven to have no scientific merit in hopes of achieving outcomes driven by sources and initiatives unique to Texas.

Why Details Matter for Louisiana in the Formulary Debate

An edited version of this article was published on Louisiana Comp Blog. Click here to link to view.

The Proverbial Broad Brush

Generalities plague the Workers’ Compensation industry. From indirectly typecasting opioid-using patients as drug addicts to characterizing physicians as narrow-minded profit-driven narcissists, and former State officials suggesting a single binary drug list can have similar cost-saving effects in multiple jurisdictions. The proverbial broad brush is a potent distraction from the specific issues needing attention in order to improve the quality of care to injured workers.

Louisiana’s Need of a Drug Formulary

Former Texas Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, Rod Bordelon, has represented Work Loss Data Institute and their ODG Treatment Guidelines and Drug Formulary in a number of jurisdictions. In November of 2016, he made a stop at the Louisiana Association of Self Insured Employers (LASIE) annual conference.

Armed with the usual workers’ compensation cost savings statistics from the State of Texas, Mr. Bordelon and LASIE made a case suggesting that Louisiana can experience similar savings if they adopted the same formulary as Texas – the ODG binary drug list. The presentation overlooked two critical differences between Louisiana and Texas that will have a significant impact on the formulary’s performance:

  • Louisiana recognizes the Colorado Treatment Guidelines as the presumptively correct standard of care and not the ODG Treatment Guidelines like Texas.
  • Louisiana does not have a legislative mandate to use Return-To-Work Guidelines to support the return to work process of its injured workers.

The Colorado Treatment Guidelines and ODG Treatment Guidelines have very different levels of rigor in their development methodology. As an indication of the differences in their scientific basis, the Colorado Guidelines are listed in AHRQ’s National Guideline Clearinghouse for being trustworthy clinical guidelines aligning with the Institute of Medicine’s Standards for Developing Trustworthy Clinical Practice Guidelines. After it was determined that they did not meet critical standards of evidence-based medicine such as transparency, study inclusion/exclusion criteria, the ODG Treatment Guidelines were removed from the National Guideline Clearinghouse in June of 2016.  As a result, Louisiana stakeholders should expect to experience friction and disconnect resulting from using the ODG drug list, purportedly based on the ODG Treatment Guidelines, and the Colorado Guidelines in concert.

Perhaps the most underestimated component of the Texas Workers’ Compensation system that has supported their reduction in prescription drugs is their legislated mandate to use Return-To-Work guidelines to help injured workers return to productivity as soon and safely as possible. Texas’ efforts to keep workers employed while recovering from work-related injuries and illnesses has resulted in a drop in lost-time claims from 165,000 in 2000 to fewer than 90,000 in 2014. The success of the Return-To-Work program is preventing the pathogenic effects of job loss such as, decreased physical and mental health and higher treatment utilization, and thus driving down medication consumption.

The Basis of a Trustworthy Drug Formulary

On Monday, May 1st, the California Division of Workers Compensation (DWC) held a public hearing required by statute in order to collect feedback on its proposed regulation package for the enactment of the MTUS Drug Formulary/Preferred Drug List derived from the ACOEM-based Formulary. Their journey to adopting a trustworthy drug formulary has been long, detailed oriented, and started with a comprehensive independent report from the RAND Corporation, Implementing a Drug Formulary for California’s Workers’ Compensation Program.

Several assumptions regarding how California’s DWC would design and implement the drug formulary underpinned RAND’s methodological approach and policy analyses. Their first, and possibly most important, assumption was that the DWC intended to adopt a formulary designed to maximize quality-of-care, health, and work-related outcomes; this has also been a guiding principal behind Louisiana’s HB 592 according the bill’s sponsor, Representative Kirk Talbot and the Louisiana Association of Self Insured Employers. To accomplish these objectives in California, RAND recommended the formulary drug list and drug classification scheme to be evidence-based and as consistent with the California’s Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (i.e., California’s Treatment Guidelines) as possible.

RAND reviewed five existing drug formulary models: Washington State Department of Labor and Industries, Reed Group’s ACOEM-based Formulary, Work Loss Data Institute’s ODG Formulary, Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation, and California Department of Health Care Service (Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid Program). The five models were compared across six criteria including, but not limited to: Reliance on evidence-based criteria, Transparency in process used to establish and maintain the formulary drug list and recommendation, Established process for regular updates to the formulary drugs and recommendations.

The RAND report identified that while the ODG formulary would be easier to implement, methods used to develop the guidelines used as the formulary’s basis have been less rigorous than its counterparts in the workers’ compensation arena (Nuckols et al., 2014), and the methodology used to derive California’s Prospective Review requirements when there are condition-specific variations in the guideline recommendations is not transparent. Based on these findings, the ODG Formulary may be easy to implement, but was not determined to be a trustworthy source to maximize quality-of-care, health, and work-related outcomes.

Due to fact that very little of California’s MTUS guidelines were based on ODG, the adoption of the ODG Formulary would represent a major departure from the current California Treatment Guidelines. Similar to California, a departure from Louisiana’s presumptively correct standards, the Colorado Treatment Guidelines, will create an environment governed by friction and disagreement.

Trends in State Adoptions of Commercial EBM Guidelines and Drug Formularies

A trend seems to be evolving throughout the country regarding proposals to adopt evidence-based treatment guidelines and drug formularies. In 2016, numerous stakeholders in more than a dozen States proposed the adoption of nationally recognized evidence-based medical treatment guidelines and drug formularies. A number of bills introduced during the 2016 legislative session specifically named the ODG treatment guidelines, drug formulary.

As education aimed at providing State lawmakers and stakeholders in workers’ compensation with important information to measure the quality and trustworthiness of EBM content sources becomes more popular, the interest in the ODG brand is waning. Of the two commercially available workers’ compensation guidelines and formularies, only Reed Group’s ACOEM Treatment Guidelines and Drug Formulary have been selected for adoption in the last 24 months (California and Nevada).

It is clear that AHRQ’s National Guideline Clearinghouse’s announcement of ODG’s removal from its database in June of 2016 was a major disruptor in the national workers’ compensation industry’s pursuit of the content source. According to Mary Nix (AHRQ’s Health Scientist Administrator), the removal was prompted after AHRQ’s clearinghouse was not able to assure that the systematic evidence review was conducted for the topics covered in ODG.

In addition to Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, New York and Pennsylvania have ongoing legislative conversations pertaining to the adoption of a drug formulary. As with Louisiana, the Colorado Treatment Guidelines are adopted in part, or in whole, in Montana and New York providing the content source presumptive weight. The question of what formulary will work best in concert with the Colorado Treatment Guidelines will also need to be answered in these jurisdictions.

Time Will Tell

While most stakeholders in Louisiana feel an evidence-based drug formulary can be a useful tool to support other State measures to curb opioid prescriptions, not many believe the ODG binary drug list is the right fit for injured workers in the State. Louisiana Representative Chris Broadwater, author of this year’s HB 529 calling for the Louisiana Office of Workers’ Compensation Administration to create a drug formulary, pulled a similar bill introduced in 2016 requiring the use of the ODG binary drug list. What does Representative Broadwater know that Representative Kirk Talbot, Bordelon, and LASIE do not?

Comparing the Texas workers’ compensation system to Louisiana’s system is like comparing apples to oranges. The expectations for similar outcomes is a stretch, to say the least, at the expense of injured workers.

In an industry where complexity is normal and expected, it seems a broad-brush approach to anything would be unfamiliar and uncomfortable. Time will tell if the desire to save money will prevail over common sense, medical sensibility, and preserving the injured workers’ right to the appropriate medical care.

AHRQ’s National Guideline Clearinghouse and its Relevance

This article was published on Louisiana Comp Blog. Click here to link to the article.

Still Relevant?

Medical practitioners face considerable uncertainty practicing the art of medicine. They rely on their knowledge, skills, experience, and patient preferences. They also rely on the scientific literature to inform their decisions on treatment planning and measuring patient restoration of function. Marketing-savvy device and drug manufacturers often cloud the picture and make identifying effective treatment protocols more difficult. The quality of life for many injured workers weighs in the balance, which is why it is necessary to have organizations such as the National Guidelines Clearinghouse separate trustworthy content from marketing speak.

Institute of Medicine Standards for Trustworthy Guidelines

As of 2011, there were over 3,700 published clinical practice guidelines from 39 countries available for use. Hundreds of these guidelines meet the definition of nationally recognized guidelines; a definition used in most legislative bills introduced and enacted by state legislatures to govern the standard of care for injured workers throughout the country. Being nationally recognized does not mean a guideline is safe and trustworthy to use as a standard of care for injured workers.

Because the term “evidence-based” has been thrown around quite readily, the U.S. Congress tasked the Institute of Medicine (IOM), now known as the National Academy of Medicine, through the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 to initiate a study defining best practices used in developing rigorous, trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The outcome of the request became the formation of an expert committee. The committee developed eight standards focused on developing guidelines using approaches that are objective, scientifically valid, consistent, transparent, and free of bias.

Evaluation of Guidelines’ Trustworthiness

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) directs a portion of its research funding, through its National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), to evaluate guideline provider submissions against the Institute of Medicine’s eight standards. Assessments are made to determine the reliability, validity, and effects of these guidelines on health care quality and patient outcomes. As a result, the NGC is required to discontinue the inclusion of guidelines whose development does not meet the eight standards and whose development is insufficiently documented.

The standards used by National Guideline Clearinghouse to assess rigor and trustworthiness include:

Establishing transparency, management of conflict of interest, guideline development group composition, clinical practice guideline–systematic review intersection, establishing evidence foundations for and rating strength of recommendations, articulation of recommendations, external review, and updating.

NGC’s Applicability to Commercially Available Guidelines

NGC made national headlines in June of 2016 after announcing the removal of the Official Disability Guidelines (ODG), published by Work Loss Data Institute from its database of trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. According to NGC, the removal of ODG took place due to the following deficiencies:

  • Failure to explain how they selected studies for their evidence-based review;
  • Document did not include the number of studies identified or the number of studies evaluated;
  • No summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria; and
  • ODG did not provide synthesized detailed descriptions or evidence tables.

Phil Denniston, ODG’s former-President, went on the record commenting that the Clearinghouse “has moved in the direction of hosting academic guidelines, primarily guidelines produced by medical specialty societies who give the guidelines away to support the interests of their members.”

Mr. Denniston continued: “All of the leading commercial medical treatment guidelines, including Hearst, Milliman, MCG, Zynx, McKesson, Interqual, Dynamed, UpToDate, and others, now also decline to participate in NGC.”

Could it be that the pursuit of healthier margins are the reason commercial treatment guidelines publishers have declined to participate?

Meeting strict standards is not easy and it is not cheap, but the health of injured workers is too important and because of this importance, ReedGroup, owners of the ACOEM Practice Guidelines, have made the requisite commitment to meet the eight essential standards described earlier. As a result, NGC notified ReedGroup on March 2nd, 2017, that guidelines it submitted for evaluation were accepted for inclusion in the NGC. For the record, Reed Group’s ACOEM Practice Guidelines is the only other nationally recognized commercially available guideline for workers’ compensation.

The Importance of University-based Research

Reed Group’s approach to development using a university-based research team anchors the effort to produce trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. The team consults various databases for primary sources of original research. Also searched, are other databases likely to contain references to high quality literature:

  • National Library of Medicine’s National Institute of Health (PubMed)
  • CINAHL (nursing, biomedicine, health sciences librarianship, alternative/complementary medicine, consumer health and 17 allied health disciplines)
  • Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials
  • Scopus
  • Google Scholar

ODG’s methodology document, posted on its website, lists literature sources that include textbooks, conference proceedings/presentation slides, and case reports and descriptions. None of these sources meet the selection criteria for creating quality guidelines and rating literature set forth by the Institute of Medicine.

What does this mean to Louisiana and the rest of the country?

If the evidence underpinning the guidelines is in question, then every recommendation (conservative or invasive care, pharmacological, etc.) stemming from the guidelines must also be in question.

Discussions to adopt evidence-based drug formularies continue across the country. Will legislatures continue to perpetuate actions focused on fiscal benefits? Or, will a leader emerge in the south to recognize the relevance of the National Guideline Clearinghouse’s rigorous assessment of quality and trustworthiness among a sea of guidelines promoting physical benefits?

Meeting NGC criteria is not only relevant, it’s vital.

WorkComp’s Unsung Hero

Today’s workers’ compensation regulatory landscape is populated by requests to standardize the use of prescription drug monitoring technology, evidence-based medicine treatment guidelines, drug formularies, and other modern approaches to Occupational Medicine. All is geared toward minimizing the over-utilization of treatment and the eradication of inappropriate prescriptions of highly addictive pain medications. The key to addressing these grave healthcare concerns is not flashy, sophisticated, or modern…it is expressed in one word – WORK.

Return-to-work is mostly referenced as a retrospective outcomes metric that indicates a program’s success and often viewed as the end-game, or the goal.  In workers’ compensation, the effectiveness of evidence-based medicine treatment guidelines and drug formularies is measured by their impact on drug spend and return-to-work rates, when quality data is available.

The State of Texas has been widely used as an example for their success in reducing the amount of non-preferred, non-formulary drugs prescribed to injured workers and overall drug spend by pundits in workers’ compensation. Receiving less headlines, however, is the fact that the success of the Texas formulary is strongly driven by Title 28 of Texas’ Administrative Code §137.10:

(a) Insurance carriers, health care providers, and employers shall use the disability duration values in the current edition of The Medical Disability Advisor [now known as MDGuidelines®], Workplace Guidelines for Disability Duration, excluding all sections and tables relating to rehabilitation, (MDA), published by the Reed Group, Ltd. (Division return to work guidelines), as guidelines for the evaluation of expected or average return to work time frames.

DC Campbell, research director of the Workers’ Compensation Research and Evaluation Group at the Texas Department of Insurance has stated that lost-time claims have dropped from 165,000 in 2000 to less than 90,000 in 2014.(1)  The state’s diligent effort to keep workers employed while recovering from a work-related injury or illness is preventing the pathogenic effects of lob loss such as, decreased physical and mental health and higher treatment utilization, and thus driving down medication consumption.

Gordon Waddell (pronounced WAD-uhl) and A Kim Burton explored the positive influence of work on a sick, or disabled person’s overall health and well-being in their book Is Work Good for Your Health and Well-being. Their findings state that when a person’s health condition permits, remaining in or re-entering work as soon as possible will be therapeutic, help promote recovery and rehabilitation, lead to better health outcomes, reduce risk of long-term incapacity, and improve quality of life and well-being.(2)

Conversely, Waddell and Burton document a strong association between job loss and poorer general health, poorer mental health, higher medical consultation, higher medication consumption, higher hospital admission rates, and higher mortality.(2)

If these findings are valid, why are return-to-work guidelines not as frequently considered for standardization by state workers’ compensation agencies compared to their content counterparts, treatment guidelines and drug formularies?

Is it due to the perception that return-to-work will sort itself out with strong compliance to treatment and pharmaceutical standards?

According to Dr. Jennifer Christian’s Work Disability Prevention Manifesto, health care providers, employers, and benefits administrators typically involved in return-to-work situations do not feel responsible for avoiding job loss, or absences.(3)

Similar to the education process that should occur in the clinic between the treating provider and the patient when considering the use of narcotics, the benefits of return-to-work and the risks of worklessness should be discussed in comprehensive detail. Creating appropriate expectations about return-to-work, or stay-at-work, at the point of care should be the highest priority understanding the impact it will have on the overall recovery and treatment and medication consumption by the patient.

The AMA Guides to Evaluation of Work Ability and Return to Work 2nd Editionprovides the following guidance:

Physicians are familiar with prescribing medications for patients. If a physician looked up a drug in the Physician’s Desk Reference and found a “black box” warning required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) like this one:

would physicians prescribe that medication?

Physicians should have the same mind-set when filling out return-to-work forms as when about to prescribe a medication with the above black box warning.(4)

Addressing possible solutions to the problem of job loss, Dr. Christian writes, “Health-related work disruption should be viewed as a life emergency. Productive activity should be a part of treatment regimens.” (3)

Perhaps the best model to follow when considering an injured worker’s readiness for return-to-work involves the consideration of Risk, Capacity, and Tolerance.(5)

Risk is a basis for physician-imposed activity restrictions. Most return-to-work forms sent to physicians have a line on which the physician can state restrictions that may pose a risk to the individual or to others (e.g. co-workers, the general motoring public, etc.).  Risk, in this context, means the person should not do something, even though they may actually be capable of doing the activity.  For example, individuals with uncontrolled seizure disorders are not permitted to work as commercial airline pilots or bus drivers based on risk.

Capacity is the basis for physician described activity limitations, and means the individual is not yet physically capable of an activity. Many of the aforementioned forms have a line on which the physician can state limitations based on capacity evaluation. For example, after a wound into the biceps muscle mass of the arm, an individual may not yet have the strength to permit lifting a certain amount of weight; or after a fracture of the shoulder, an individual may not yet have enough shoulder motion for his/her hand to reach the overhead control on a factory press.

Tolerance is the issue with which doctors, employers, employees, and insurers struggle. It is the ability to put up with the symptoms, such as pain or fatigue, that accompany doing work tasks, that the individual can clearly do, in order to gain the rewards of work (e.g., income, self-esteem, health benefits of work, etc.).  Tolerance is not a scientific concept, and is not scientifically measurable.  Patients consider factors like income and finances, job satisfaction, need for employer provided health insurance benefits, availability of disability or workers’ compensation insurance to maintain income, ability to switch to physically easier careers, etc. when deciding whether the rewards of working are to them worth the “cost” of working.

This model, which effectively brings into consideration the main factors that involve job loss, works well in conjunction with the MDA disability duration tables’ Minimum, Optimum, and Maximum timeframes for physiological recovery, adopted by the State of Texas.

Return-to-work is a potent ally in preventing medical scenarios from becoming unnecessarily complex and causing long-term disability while fostering over-utilization and over-consumption of treatment and medications. It can, and should, be used proactively as part of treatment regimens to ensure injured workers profit from the therapeutic benefits of the workplace.

Dr. Richard Pimentel, a passionate disability rights activist, once stated, “You do not get injured workers well to get them back to work. You get them back to work to get them well.”

1.     Foster, JTodd. “State Touts Workers’ Compensation System as ‘Model’ for the Nation.” WorkComp Central, September 2016. Web. 01 November. 2016. https://www.workcompcentral.com/news/story/id/a8f3b13bdbbc471ce6b81a036649c0e836863559

2.     Waddell GA, Burton AK. Is Work Good for Your Health and Well Being? The Stationery Office, London, 2006

3.     Christian, J. (2016, August). Work Disability Prevention Manifesto [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.jenniferchristian.com/tag/work-disability/

4.     Talmage JB, Melhorn JM. Hyman, M. AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Work Ability and Return to Work 2nd Edition. AMA Press, Chicago, 2011. P.3-4

5.     Talmage JB, Melhorn JM. A Physician’s Guide to Return to Work. AMA Press, Chicago, 2005

Nation’s Leading Medical Society Releases Position Statement on Drug Formularies in Workers’ Compensation

The American prescription drug epidemic continues to inspire action across the country by Federal, State, Private, Public, and Not-For-Profit entities. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has published a position paper (Download Here) aimed at State Regulators, Medical Directors, Medical Advisory Committees, and all other parties involved in adopting drug formularies in hopes of curbing the inappropriate prescription of pharmaceuticals.

Founded in 1916, ACOEM is the nation’s largest medical society, researching issues pertinent to Occupational and Environmental Medicine. Its guidance and research has been used/referenced by many prominent institutions on the forefront of healthcare; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is the latest organization to leverage ACOEM’s work to inform the development of the CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain (See ACOEM’s Letter to the CDC expressing support/sharing research for its recommendations on the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain).

Making ACOEM’s formulary position paper unique and particularly valuable is:

  1. It was researched and developed by ACOEM’s Task Force on Workers’ Compensation on Formularies – a committee of renowned Occupational Health experts and ACOEM fellows including Manijeh Berenji, MD; Robert Blink, MD; William Gaines, MD; Robert Goldberg, MD; Kathryn Mueller MD; and Paul Papanek, MD
  2. It provides the much needed perspective of practicing clinicians working the front-lines of the battle against prescription drug abuse
  3. Included guidance on prompt fill scenarios/considerations
  4. Included detailed table highlighting various characteristics of prominent, currently available commercial and public domain drug formularies

With public policy activity around prescription drug standards reaching an all-time high in 2016, and expected to continue in 2017, ACOEM’s guidance is very timely and greatly needed.

There is no substitute for sound medical guidance on policies impacting the quality of care provided to the American worker following a work-related injury or illness.

The REAL, Real Story

Recently delisted content aggregator Work Loss Data Institute (WLDI) published a write-up authored by Tom Ferrell Denniston (ODG, Account Executive), Dr. Stephen Norwood (ODG, Editor-in-Chief), and Phil Denniston (ODG, President). The write up was an attempt to “set the record straight” about the National Guidelines Clearinghouse’s (NGC’s) decision to remove the ODG content from its website.  In order to participate in the NGC, guidelines must meet the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) standards for trustworthy guidelines (click here for more information on IOM’s standards). Here are some takeaways from WLDI’s write-up:

  • WLDI misrepresented both ReedGroup and the ACOEM Practice Guidelines on several occasions
  • WLDI degraded the State of Colorado’s Medical Treatment Guidelines, calling their inclusion in the NGC “ironic”
  • WLDI’s update cycles run contrary to IOM’s criteria for the development of true Evidence-based Medical guidelines (EBM)
  • WLDI asserts that ODG is now a “Data Driven” guideline

WLDI appears to be on a campaign to degrade reputable, not-for-profit public-serving institutions such as the NGC, AHRQ, and HHS.  The reason?  WLDI is trying to draw attention away from its failure to meet the criteria that defines EBM (click here for my prior post about specific areas cited by the NGC).  This is clearly in poor form, and any reasonable person closely following the series of events which have occurred since WorkComp Central first reported ODG’s removal from the NGC on June 23, 2016 would concur.  Ultimately, ODG’s post-removal behavior is not really the heart of the matter. The vital element worth debating is that WLDI’s guidelines (ODG) are legislated/mandated as the standard of care for injured workers in a number of States’ workers’ compensation systems. The acceptance of sub-standard guidelines anywhere in our work comp system IS THE CRUX OF THE CONVERSATION.

Let me set aside the gross inaccuracies about ReedGroup and the state of Colorado for the time being.  I will address these inaccuracies at a later date.  For now, let’s take a look at how this all impacts worker health.  Look closely:

The write-up (and a 26-page PowerPoint deck released by WLDI, download here) boasts that “ODG continuously updates a large number of topics and recommendations” and “ODG Low Back Chapter alone has close to 500 Procedure Summary entries,updated monthly”.

IOM requirements for creating quality, trustworthy EBM guidelines are very clear.  Recommendations are not based on single studies, but rather a preponderance of evidence. The process of (1) creating the clinical questions to be answered, (2) gathering all of the evidence, (3) documenting every search term in every database, (4) creating the evidence tables, (5) scoring the articles, (6) drafting the recommendations, (7) incorporating review and guidance from multi-disciplinary panels, (8) allowing stakeholder / external review and incorporating this feedback to create final guidance isNOT a process that can take place on a monthly basis.  Nor should it. The fact that WLDI is updating ODG on a monthly basis begs the following question – How can ODG do the proper diligence needed to adhere to all 8 steps outlined above in such a truncated time frame? The fact is they cannot. The foundation of evidence-based medicine lies in the meticulous, calculated, measured process outlined above.

Deciding to dig deeper, I conducted a little research and came across WLDI/ODG’s methodology document.  See page 15, section 8.  WLDI’s methodology is clearly defined.   The materials listed as evidence include:

Ranking by Type of Evidence:


  1. Systematic Review/Meta-Analysis
  2. Controlled Trial – Randomized (RCT) or Controlled
  3. Cohort Study – Prospective or Retrospective
  4. Case Series
  5. Unstructured Review


  1. Nationally Recognized Treatment Guideline (from guidelines.gov)
  2. State Treatment Guideline
  3. Other Treatment Guideline
  4. Textbook
  5. Conference Proceedings/Presentation Slides
  6. Case Reports and Descriptions

Ranking by Quality within Type of Evidence:

  1. High Quality
  2. Medium Quality
  3. Low Quality

None of the materials under the “OTHER” header being reviewed by ODG wouldqualify as “high quality” and do not meet literature selection inclusion criteria for IOM, GRADE, AGREE, and AMSTAR.  Over 50% of what they list as evidence is clearly immaterial. I suppose if one bases an update to a guideline on “10. Conference Proceedings/Presentation Slides” monthly revisions are not unreasonable. The guidance produced as a result of an update based on “Conference Proceedings/Presentation Slides”, however, is not even close to evidence-based by standard, and thus subjects workers to harm and shareholders to undue liability and risk. This “guidance” would also be nearly impossible to defend if someone were to challenge its basis.

The write up also highlights that “ODG Becomes a Data Driven Guideline” and therefore “does not fit the mold” that NGC has created for EBM. I agree that ODG doesNOT fit the EBM mold (due to its failure to meet the criteria), but I’m left wondering whose standards to trust – standards created by the Institute of Medicine or standards created by the Institute of ODG?  The assertion that ODG is of higher quality because it incorporates outcomes claims data does not conform to any quality measure that I know of and is highly illogical. For example, a specific surgery may be performed at a high frequency for a large number of patients and thus is represented in “the data”; one cannot interpret the data to say that the procedure is of long term benefit to the patient and therefore should be recommended for injured workers. This is just ONE reason why workers’ compensation data should NOT drive treatment decisions.

WLDI also states, “Guidelines can study all of the literature, rank the reviews and/or RCT’s, adhere to the strictest standards of EBM, but most patients, providers, and payers simply want to know what treatments work and get better outcomes versus others.” I translate this to say WLDI feels that the science and the process is of little importance; all that matters is reduced utilization and subsequent savings. Of all of the studies published on the ODG content/tools, not one study has affirmed that workers are receiving better medical care as a result of the use of their content/tools. As a family member of a currently injured worker in the throes of the workers’ compensation system, the methodology behind the guidelines matters a GREAT deal. To base medical care on claims data is the epitome of putting the cart before the horse and is entirely misguided.  Improvement in outcomes – healthcare and fiscal – are only appropriate when supported by scientific evidence scrutinized using atrustworthy, transparent, reproducible EBM methodology.

To date, WLDI has accused 3 not-for-profit federally administered public agencies of misrepresenting the truth, published a back-dated press release on their website, and distributed an outlandish write-up on LinkedIn about the de-listing being due to “formatting” issues.  They have degraded very reputable institutions like the State of Colorado’s Department of Labor and Employment Division of Workers’ Compensation.

Why would anyone place any sort of stock/confidence in an organization that so effortlessly contours reality for financial gain?  Should we trust the IOM or the IOODG?  The choice is yours.  Make the right one.


ReedGroup Sr. Vice President, Joe Guerriero posted a comment correcting WLDI’s assertions regarding the ACOEM Practice Guidelines’ participation in the NDC.  The minute the comment post appeared the original WLDI write up was removed from LinkedIn.  For the record, ACOEM will be submitting for inclusion in the NGC with full confidence that all IOM criteria will be met. (The original URL is: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/odg-national-guideline-clearinghouse-real-story-denniston?trk=hb_ntf_MEGAPHONE_ARTICLE_POST)

For context and editorial integrity, here is the full unedited post as published by WLDI on August 2nd, 2016:

“ODG and the National Guideline Clearinghouse: the Real Story

Tom Farrell, Senior Texas Account Executive, ODG

Stephen Norwood, MD, Editor-in-Chief, ODG

Phil Denniston, President, ODG

                 On June 22, 2016, while speaking before a NAMSAP audience (the National Alliance of Medicare Set-Aside Professionals), Mary Nix, the federal administrator in charge of the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC), hosted online at Guideline.gov, announced that NGC was dropping ODG under its revised inclusion criteria. Coincidentally, on June 16, 2016, ODG had prepared a withdrawal letter to Ms. Nix, saying that being published on Guideline.gov is not a good fit for ODG. According to the letter, commercial guidelines are successful at improving outcomes because they are comprehensive and up to date, but the new NGC criteria do not support those requirements.

What brought ODG and NGC to the same conclusion at the same time?

ODG Was the First Workers’ Comp Guideline to be Included in the NGC

The previous NGC criteria required the medical treatment guidelines be evidence-based and be updated at least every five years. The ODG medical treatment guideline ODG Treatment in Workers’ Comp was first launched in 2003, and by the end of 2004 it was approved by the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality (AHRQ) for inclusion in the NGC. For many years it was the only guideline used in worker’s comp to be accepted in NGC. The ACOEM Practice Guidelines were not accepted into NGC until late in the same decade. The Reed Medical Disability Advisor (MDA), which became MDGuidelines, has never been accepted into NGC.

The process for including ODG in NGC involved the NGC contractor ECRI having access to the online version of ODG, and preparing abstracts of the ODG content for posting on NGC, after approval by ODG. Over time, the ODG updating process became more and more frequent, with the objective of providing access to the most current evidence on the treatments that are proven to help injured workers recover and return to work. States adopting ODG, such as Texas, even specify that the “current” edition of ODG is the one required under the adoption rules. In addition, over time ODG became more and more comprehensive. If treatments or diagnostic procedures are missing from a guideline, the guideline cannot play its role of ensuring that injured workers’ get access to the right treatment and minimize friction in the system. As a result of the increased timeliness and comprehensiveness of ODG, it became more and more challenging for the federal contractor ECRI to do its job of abstracting ODG for NGC.

NGC Implements New Criteria

New NGC standards took effect on June 1, 2014, and require more detail. Those submitting guidelines must now explain how they selected studies for their evidence-based review, including the number of studies identified, the number of studies evaluated, a summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the evidence from the selected studies must be synthesized in a detailed description or evidence table. Rather than evidence tables, ODG has Procedure Summary tables, where each entry follows a standard format, with a recommendation statement, a summary and discussion of the body of evidence, with links to the highest quality studies, that are rated and summarized, and in many cases a Criteria for use, and an evaluation of Risks versus benefits. The ODG Low Back Chapter alone has close to 500 Procedure Summary entries, updated monthly.  ODG had all of the information that would appear in an evidence table, but not in the format desired by NGC. The ODG format has been proven successful in the marketplace, and ODG was not willing to change its format to meet the needs of the NGC.

During 2016 an impasse was developing over whether NGC would accept ODG under their new criteria. At the same time, NGC said in correspondence to ODG that they were mindful that their model for guidelines may not be a good fit for ODG, because ODG continuously updates a large number of topics and recommendations. Accurately fitting ODG into the NGC format was becoming more of a challenge. In fact, the most recent versions of ODG contained on NGC were dated 2013, which is a problem since states are requiring the current version of ODG. The NGC policy for including guidelines grandfathered under the old criteria, was to leave them in for five years, at which time they would be removed. However, because ODG had submitted updated guidelines, the 2013 versions of ODG were removed. This is in contrast to the ACOEM Practice Guidelines, where the versions on NGC are dated 2011. However, the ACOEM guidelines have not been removed because there are no updates. This is counterproductive that guidelines which are more up-to-date are penalized. Recently Reed Group, owner of the ACOEM Practice Guidelines, has announced they will not allow their updated guidelines to be included in NGC; making the ACOEM Practice Guidelines of NGC as good as a five year old textbook, based on five year old evidence. One wonders if ACOEM Practice Guidelines will remain on NGC now that they’re in the fifth year.

The Guideline Marketplace Goes in a Different Direction

During the process with NGC in 2016, ODG studied the guideline marketplace. The conclusion was that NGC has moved in the direction of hosting academic guidelines, primarily guidelines produced by medical specialty societies who give the guidelines away to support the interests of their members. Their updates tend to be measured in years (3-5), which fits the NGC submission process much better. ODG is considerably more rigorous, with the update process in continuous operation, and was the only independent for-profit guideline left in NGC. Given the changes, ODG decided it is no longer a good fit. All of the leading commercial medical treatment guidelines, including Hearst, Milliman, MCG, Zynx, McKesson, Interqual, Dynamed, UpToDate, and others, now also decline to participate in NGC. Like ODG, these guidelines measure success by proven patient outcomes, benefiting both injured workers and employers. NGC is a nice resource for combing the universe of free PDF-type guidelines from specialty societies and academic institutions, but not the place for dynamic Software as a Service subscription models with continuous review and updates. ODG decided that we appreciate working with them in the past, and wish them success in the future, but without ODG participation.

Ms. Nix’s decision to make the announcement about ODG at a NAMSAP meeting was questionable, since CMS, which controls what Medicare Set Asides get approved, has recommended two guidelines in their Medicare Set Aside instruction manual, Milliman and ODG, both for profit guidelines, and neither of which participating in NGC.

Examples of Guidelines that Remain in NGC

As stated above, the primary guidelines actually used to make healthcare decisions in the U.S. are not included in NGC. These are all published by for profit organizations. You can search the NGC by guideline publisher to identify those publishers that are for profit. Since ODG was delisted, doing this on July 5, 2016, indicates that there is only one for profit guideline on NGC, the SOLUTIONS® wound care algorithm. 1994 (revised 2013 Sep). NGC:010274, published by ConvaTec. Obviously this guideline is highly specialized and could not be used as a general workers’ comp medical treatment guideline. In addition, ConvaTec is a manufacturer of wound care products, so this guideline is essentially a users’ guide to their products, which raises additional questions about the NGC inclusion criteria.

When it comes to workers’ compensation, the newer chapters from the State of Colorado Division of Workers’ Comp have been accepted into NGC using the new criteria. This is ironic since these guidelines have a reputation for being very permissive, but not evidence based. The Colorado guidelines recommend lumbar fusion for degenerative disc disease. This is a major area of abuse in workers’ comp, and it is not recommended by ODG, nor by ACOEM. Colorado also recommends lumbar artificial disk, also found as not recommended in both ODG and ACOEM, due to risks and poor outcomes. Colorado had even recommended IDET, a procedure that almost no one does anymore because it is disproven. The Colorado guidelines are permissive because they were written for an employer-choice state, where there is less of a problem with unnecessary treatments. When other states have adopted Colorado, outcomes have not been good. For example, when Oklahoma had adopted Colorado, costs became among the highest in the U.S., then they passed legislation adopting ODG instead, and outcomes have improved substantially.

ODG Becomes a Data Driven Guideline

ODG does not fit the NGC mold for many reasons. In addition to proprietary formatting and user friendly software, ODG is increasingly reliant on data. ODG is unique as a predictive analytics company using the largest dataset available in workers’ comp. Guidelines can study all of the literature, rank the reviews and/or RCT’s, adhere to the strictest standards of EBM,  but most patients, providers, and payers simply want to know what treatments work and get better outcomes versus others. ODG has the highest form of evidence because it contains both the studies/reviews and the actual data. Other guidelines preach to adhere to the strictest standards of EBM, yet there are no studies that demonstrate improved outcomes from using them. ODG is leading the paradigm shift from evidence-based medicine to data-driven medicine. The ODG UR Advisor is an example of this.

There are many studies showing that use of ODG results in successful outcomes. The latest study by Johns Hopkins is published in the ACOEM Journal[1].

[1] A New Method of Assessing the Impact of Evidence-Based Medicine on Claim Outcomes

Dan L. Hunt, DO, Jack Tower, MS, Ryan D. Artuso, PhD, Jeffrey A. White, MS,

Craig Bilinski, MS, James Rademacher, BA, Xuguang Tao, MD, PhD,

and Edward J. Bernacki, MD, MPH. JOEM _ Volume 58, Number 5, May 2016”

Why should WorkComp Insurers care about trustworthy evidence-based medicine?

The delisting of a popular commercial guideline provider has initiated dialog within the Workers’ Compensation community about raising the bar on the standard of care for the American worker. According to the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC), the delisting occurred due to key fundamental elements of evidence-based medicine missing from the content’s development. The missing elements are standards for trustworthy guidelines that were established by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2011 at the request of U.S. Congress, through the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008. NGC, administered by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) – a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, took on the request for the study to provide guideline users with a mechanism to immediately identify high quality, trustworthy clinical practice guidelines.(1)

The removal of the content aggregator, which labels itself “The Evidence-Based Guideline Company”, solicits one of two responses: Alarm/caution and indifference. Advocates for employee health and patient-centric solutions agree that the delisting of the content aggregator should, at the very least, serve as a flag for interested parties/authorities to dig deeper into the shortcoming. While alarm and caution seem perfectly rational responses to the issue, a sense of indifference seems out of place in an industry that’s origins are rooted in employee/employer advocacy.

The delisted content is widely used by workcomp insurers in compliance with jurisdictions’ adoptions of the content across the country to serve as a standard of care for injured workers. On its corporate website, the content’s aggregator equates efficacy to medical cost-savings (25%-60% by state, payer, TPA, and health plan), shortened disability durations (34%-66%, median duration down 20%), and other measurements calculated internally by the organization.

An article, citing preliminary findings from the National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc. (NCCI), published in late December 2015 expanded on the likelihood of private workcomp insurers experiencing a second straight year of underwriting profitability in 2015.(2) Confirmation of NCCI’s preliminary findings for 2015 was published in May 2016 stating that the combined ratio for private carriers was 94%, a six-point improvement from 2014’s combined ratio of 100%. The write up announced, “the workers’ compensation market is healthy and profitable.”(3)

With the touted cost savings, why should workcomp insurers, or anyone else for that matter, care about the guidelines’ trustworthiness as it pertains to IOM’s standards for evidence-based medicine?

The answer is simple: Absent of trustworthy evidence-based medicine, the denial of care is NOT EQUAL to quality care.

The California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) published a report dated March 3rd, 2016 analyzing outcomes for Workers Compensation inpatient hospitalizations and implant eligible spinal surgeries from 2008 to 2014. The report commemorated a decrease in inpatient hospitalizations by 22.8% and assessed that the number of Workers Compensation implant-eligible spinal surgeries declined 8.4% in 2013 and 13.6% in 2014. The report also explained that payers of Workers’ Compensation claims saw fewer hospital stays than Medicare, Medi-Cal and private coverage between 2013 and 2014. The CWCI report cites that the decline “coincided with continued development of evidence-based medicine…” – employing trustworthy evidence-based medicine guidelines that comply with IOM’s standards will produce improvements in costs, reducing unnecessary utilization of treatment, and ultimately returning injured workers to health and productive endeavor.

christine_bakerThe State of California’s pursuit of what DIR Director Christine Baker called “the
best formulary in the nation
” has been focused on reducing system friction and utilization review costs. Supporting prescribers with trustworthy, transparent, reproducible evidence-based medicine for script recommendations allows all stakeholders down the work-comp production line to confirm appropriateness using the scientific evidence underpinning the drug recommendation. The result is reduced friction, less disputes, and streamlined care to the injured worker.

When I asked a very well-respected colleague, whose clients primarily consist of insurance companies, principles, and agents, why Insurers should care about quality content supporting healthcare decisions for injured workers the answer was two-fold:

  1. Quality, trustworthy content is easier to defend. In the event that a disagreement arises about the course of treatment for the injured worker, having the ability to justify the appropriate course of treatment with quality, trustworthy content is paramount.
  2. Insurers are not just there to insure and fund claims. As part of their brand, insurers have a big responsibility to its clients to help with claims management and medical management. Using the best quality scientific evidence available protects the insurer/employer and the injured worker from undue complexity in the claim due to content whose development is not transparent and reproducible.

Perhaps the most compelling answer to the question on why WorkComp insurers should care about trustworthy EBM is actually another question – Why not?

If trustworthy, IOM-compliant EBM is available today, why wouldn’t ALL WorkComp stakeholders, including insurers prefer it over content proven to lack EBM’s most important attributes. Why would anyone expose injured workers, employers, insurers, and all others involved to undue risk and liability?

I can only assume that stakeholders choosing anything other than guidelines that meet the IOM criteria have never been aware that criteria for a quality, trustworthy guideline exists.

Thanks to the AHRQ and the National Guidelines Clearinghouse for bringing this matter to the forefront.  If you’d like to learn more about IOM’s criteria for a trustworthy, quality guideline, click here.


  1. National Academy of Sciences. “Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust.” The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine Health and Medicine Division. 23 March 2011. 25 July 2016.<http://nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2011/Clinical-Practice-Guidelines-We-Can-Trust/Clinical%20Practice%20Guidelines%202011%20Report%20Brief.pdf>
  1. Goldberg, Stephanie. “Workers comp insurers stay profitable amid industry changes.” Business Insurance, 20 December 2015. Web. 12 July 2016. <http://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20151220/NEWS08/312209984>
  2. NCCI. “Workers’ Compensation Market Improved, Grew Premium in 2015: NCCI.” Insurance Journal, 06 May 2016. Web. 12 July 2016. <http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2016/05/06/407778.htm>