Menu Close

Author: WorkCompAcademy

Study Shows California’s Heat Standard and Reduction in Deaths

WorkCompAcademy

California’s 2005 heat standard was an important first step to protect workers. Yet critics argued that the standard contained ambiguous wording that enabled employers to avoid improving working conditions, relied on vulnerable workers to demand breaks, and was not actively enforced by the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health.

In 2010, California responded by launching a statewide initiative aimed at educating workers about their rights, improving compliance among employers, and increasing inspections and enforcement. Labor unions and worker advocates continued to argue for changes, and in 2015, California revised the standard to close loopholes related to rest, water, shade, and enforcement.

Several US states have followed California’s example. Since 2022, Colorado, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have passed new laws that mandate water, shade, and regular rest breaks for all outdoor workers on hot days. In August 2024, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed a new standard that would require similar protections for workers throughout the United States.

A new study just published by Health Affairs compared heat-related deaths among outdoor workers in California with those in neighboring states without standards during the period 1999–20. Researchers obtained data for all 126 counties in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Oregon for the period 1999–20. They identified 6,145 heat-related deaths among outdoor workers during the study period.

Arizona had the highest cumulative number of deaths (2,546), followed by California (2,207), Nevada (1,124), and Oregon (268). The county-year with the highest number of heat-related deaths among outdoor workers was Maricopa County, Arizona, with 233 deaths in 2020. Among counties that reported heat-related deaths among outdoor workers, the mean annual death rate was 0.91 deaths per 100,000 residents. All fifty-eight counties in California were covered by a heat standard starting in 2005, whereas none of the sixty-eight counties in the neighboring states was covered by a heat standard during the study.

Results suggest that the effectiveness of California’s heat standard increased substantially over time. Researchers found no decrease associated with the policy during the initial implementation period (2005–09), but point estimates suggested a 33 percent decrease in heat-related deaths among outdoor workers after increased enforcement (2010–14) and a 51 percent decrease after California’s heat standard revisions went into effect (2015–20). Although these individual period estimates were not statistically significant, a Wald test confirmed that California’s enhanced approach from 2010 onward was associated with a statistically significant decrease in worker deaths.

“Our findings offer important lessons for other states regarding the potential promise and pitfalls of heat standards meant to protect outdoor workers. On the one hand, California’s experience suggests that heat standards can reduce heat-related deaths among outdoor workers. On the other hand, it highlights that such policies may have little impact unless they are carefully designed and effectively enforced. A review of recently implemented heat standards suggests that variation in effectiveness is likely: Although Maryland’s 2024 law closely mirrors California’s revised standard, for example, Nevada’s 2024 version lacks a trigger temperature for enforcement”

View More

Gallup Poll of 22K Workers Shows Increases in AI Use

WorkCompAcademy

This fall, Gallup conducted a comprehensive survey of over 22,000 U.S. workers, shedding light on the evolving role of AI in the American workplace. The data revealed a quiet but steady march forward in AI adoption, with 45% of employees now using it at least a few times a year – up from 40% just a quarter earlier.

Among them, frequent users, those tapping into AI a few times a week or more, climbed to 23%, while daily devotees edged up to 10%. It’s a picture of gradual integration, where AI is becoming a familiar tool rather than a daily staple for most.

Diving deeper, the survey highlighted stark differences across job types and industries. In tech-savvy fields like information systems, a whopping 76% of workers have embraced AI, turning to it for tasks that demand precision and innovation. Finance and professional services aren’t far behind, with 58% and 57% adoption rates, respectively. Yet, in the trenches of frontline work – retail at 33%, healthcare at 37%, and manufacturing at 38% – AI remains more of a distant concept, perhaps overshadowed by the hands-on demands of these roles.

When it comes to organizational buy-in, about 37% of workers reported that their companies are leveraging AI to enhance productivity, efficiency, or quality. But uncertainty lingers: 40% said their organizations haven’t jumped on board, and 23% simply weren’t sure. This fog of awareness is thicker among individual contributors (26% unsure) compared to managers (16%) or leaders (7%), and it’s even more pronounced for part-time, on-site, or non-decision-making staff, suggesting a divide between the C-suite and the shop floor.

In practice, employees are wielding AI for everyday intellectual boosts – 42% use it to consolidate information, 41% to spark ideas, and 36% to learn new skills. Chatbots and virtual assistants lead the pack, employed by over 60% of users, followed by writing and editing tools at 36%, and coding assistants at 14%. Frequent users, unsurprisingly, venture into more sophisticated territory, like data analytics (18%) or advanced coding aids (22%), painting a portrait of AI as a versatile sidekick that’s adapting to individual needs.

All told, this Gallup snapshot captures AI’s uneven but undeniable foothold in the workforce – a tool that’s driving efficiency in some corners while leaving others untouched, all amid a backdrop of growing familiarity and lingering questions about its full potential.

View More

Drug Prices Up 4% as PBM Federal/State Regulations Increase

WorkCompAcademy

In early 2026, pharmaceutical companies have implemented list price increases on at least 350 branded medications in the US, up from around 250 at the same point in 2025. The median hike is approximately 4%, consistent with the prior year’s average, despite ongoing political pressure from the Trump administration, which secured “most favored nation” (MFN) pricing deals with 14 major drugmakers in late 2025 to align certain US prices with those in other developed countries.

These deals primarily affect Medicaid and cash-paying patients for specific drugs treating conditions like diabetes, arthritis, and cancer, but they do not broadly prevent list price increases, as companies often maximize list prices while offering rebates to insurers and setting separate discounts for direct sales.

Key examples of 2026 price increases include:

– – Pfizer, which leads with hikes on about 80 products, including a 15% increase on its COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty, as well as rises on the cancer drug Ibrance, migraine treatment Nurtec, and COVID-19 therapy Paxlovid.
– – GSK with increases on around 20 drugs and vaccines, ranging from 2% to 8.9%.
– – Other notable hikes on vaccines for COVID-19, RSV, and shingles, plus some hospital drugs like morphine and hydromorphone (with increases exceeding 400% in certain cases).

At least five companies that signed Most Favored Nation deals – Pfizer, Sanofi, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, and GSK – proceeded with these increases anyway, highlighting that the agreements address only a fraction of the factors driving high US drug costs (where patients pay nearly three times more than in other developed nations). Industry stakeholders predict continued single-digit annual rises through the end of Trump’s term, largely fueled by expensive new therapies for cancer, diabetes, obesity, and gene/cell treatments.

Currently efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) have accelerated at both federal and state levels, driven by bipartisan concerns over their role in inflating drug costs, reducing pharmacy access, and prioritizing profits through practices like spread pricing (where PBMs charge payers more than they reimburse pharmacies) and rebate retention.

Congress is on the verge of passing significant PBM reforms as part of a bipartisan $1.2 trillion appropriations “minibus” package released on January 20, 2026, which funds agencies like HHS through fiscal year 2026. This deal revives elements of stalled 2024-2025 proposals, including those from Senate Finance Committee leaders Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Mike Crapo (R-ID), and is expected to be signed into law to avert a government shutdown.  Key provisions include:

– – Medicare Part D Reforms (Effective 2028-2029): Bans PBMs from pocketing manufacturer rebates or kickbacks, requiring full pass-through to plan sponsors or patients. Delinks PBM compensation from drug prices or utilization, shifting to flat service fees to reduce incentives for favoring high-cost drugs. Reinforces “any willing pharmacy” rules to prevent exclusion of independent pharmacies from networks.
– – Medicaid Changes (Effective Immediately or 2026): Bans spread pricing entirely and mandates direct payments to pharmacies.
– – Commercial Market Requirements: Mandates rebate pass-throughs to employers and updates pharmacy network standards for fairness.
– – Enforcement and Studies: Allocates $188 million to CMS for oversight, requires a government study of PBM business models, and updates the National Average Drug Acquisition Cost (NADAC) survey for accurate pricing benchmarks.
– – Other Bills: The PBM Reform Act of 2025 (H.R. 4317), introduced in July 2025, remains in the “introduced” stage but influenced the appropriations package. Separate proposals like the Patients Before Monopolies Act (introduced in 2024 and reintroduced in 2025) seek to prohibit PBM-pharmacy co-ownership by major players like UnitedHealth, CVS, and Cigna, with divestiture timelines, but have not advanced beyond committee.

These reforms target the “Big Three” PBMs (CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, and OptumRx), which control about 80% of the market and are often vertically integrated with insurers and pharmacies. A July 2024 FTC report highlighted how these entities pay affiliated pharmacies up to 40 times more for certain drugs than competitors, exacerbating costs.

All 50 states now have PBM regulations, with 26 enacting new laws in 2025 alone, focusing on licensing, transparency, and curbing predatory practices. As of January 1, 2026, several bans and requirements are in effect:

– – Spread Pricing Bans: Implemented in states like California (via Senate Bill 41) and multiple Medicaid programs, prohibiting PBMs from retaining the difference between payer charges and pharmacy reimbursements.
– – PBM-Pharmacy Ownership Bans: Arkansas led with Act 624 in April 2025, barring PBMs from owning pharmacies; it’s under federal injunction but inspired similar laws in at least five other states (e.g., Massachusetts with transparency mandates under Senate Bill 3012).
– – Transparency and Reporting: Over 23 states require real-time drug pricing disclosure and rebate reporting; 12 have prescription drug affordability boards to review costs. Illinois and others ended “predatory practices” like clawbacks.
– – Other Measures: Bans on gag clauses (preventing pharmacists from discussing cheaper options), limits on audits, and “any willing pharmacy” protections are common.

States like Arkansas and California are testing models that could influence national policy, though PBMs are litigating aggressively, with some laws delayed by courts. Projections for 2026 indicate continued state experimentation, potentially filling federal gaps.

View More

Staffing Company to Pay $4.1M to Resolve Misclassification Case

WorkCompAcademy

The San Francisco City Attorney announced that he reached a $4.5 million settlement with gig staffing company WorkWhile, requiring the company to pay restitution to thousands of delivery drivers. The settlement requires WorkWhile to pay $4.1 million in restitution to its delivery drivers and $400,000 in civil penalties to the City Attorney’s Office.

In June 2024, the City Attorney sued WorkWhile for depriving its gig workers of critical employment protections and benefits by misclassifying them as independent contractors instead of employees. In December 2024, the City Attorney secured a stipulated partial judgment and injunction that required WorkWhile to pay its California non-driver workers $1 million in restitution and reclassify all non-driver workers as employees. The ongoing lawsuit has so far yielded $5.5 million benefitting WorkWhile gig workers and helped bolster the City’s enforcement of labor laws.

WorkWhile is a San Francisco-based temporary staffing company. Since its founding in 2019, WorkWhile has grown rapidly, with half a million workers operating in 30 major metropolitan areas across 27 states. Through its app, WorkWhile provides client businesses with workers, hired and paid by WorkWhile directly, to fill empty shifts. WorkWhile fills shifts in many different industries, including delivery, warehouse, hospitality and food service, food production, event service, and general labor. WorkWhile’s gig workers often work alongside and perform the same functions as employees at the client businesses.

According to the City Attorney, WorkWhile has violated California law by misclassifying and treating these workers as independent contractors. As a result of this misclassification, the workers have been denied a wide range of state and local employee rights, including the right to overtime pay, paid sick leave, paid family leave, health and safety protections, and anti-retaliation protections, among others.

WorkWhile also did not provide legally required workers’ compensation insurance coverage but instead charged its workers a “Trust & Safety Fee,” which funded a substandard insurance-like product, shifting the cost of a workers’ compensation-type protection from the employer to its low-wage workers.

In June 2024, the City Attorney filed a lawsuit to stop to these illegal practices and recover restitution for workers who had been harmed. The lawsuit alleged that the misclassification of WorkWhile’s workforce violated a host of state and local labor laws and denied workers the protections, wages, and benefits guaranteed under law. In doing so, the City alleged WorkWhile gained an unfair business advantage over other law-abiding businesses, constituting a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The stipulated partial judgment, approved by the San Francisco Superior Court on January 16, 2026, requires WorkWhile to pay restitution to drivers who were misclassified and worked California shifts on or prior to September 5, 2025. The City Attorney will continue to litigate the classification of WorkWhile drivers who completed shifts after September 5, 2025.

The case is People of the State of California v. WorkWhile, et al, San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-24-615401. The stipulated partial judgment can be found here.

View More

California WARN Act Changes Effective January 1, 2026

WorkCompAcademy

The California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (Cal-WARN), often referred to as the California WARN Act, provides protections for employees in the event of mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations by requiring advance notice from employers. It expands on the federal WARN Act by covering smaller employers, including additional triggers like relocations, and incorporating part-time employees in certain counts.

Cal-WARN applies to “covered establishments,” defined as any industrial or commercial facility (or part thereof) that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more full- or part-time persons. This threshold is lower than the federal WARN Act’s 100-employee requirement. Other provisions specify:

– – Employer: Any person who directly or indirectly owns and operates a covered establishment; includes parent corporations for subsidiaries they control.
– – Employee: A person employed for at least 6 of the 12 months preceding the notice date; includes part-time workers in the 75-employee threshold count.
– – Layoff: Separation from a position due to lack of funds or work.
– – Mass Layoff: Layoff of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment during any 30-day period (no percentage-of-workforce requirement, unlike federal WARN).
– – Relocation: Removal of all or substantially all operations to a location 100 or more miles away. – – Termination: Cessation or substantial cessation of operations at a covered establishment.

The Act does not apply to project-based or seasonal employment where workers were hired with the understanding of limited duration.

As of January 1, 2026, amendments from Senate Bill 617 (approved October 1, 2025) have expanded the required content of notices under the Act. The Act is codified in California Labor Code sections 1400 through 1408, which outline definitions, triggers, notice requirements, penalties, exceptions, and enforcement.

The primary amendments effective in 2026 involve California Labor Code Section 1401, which governs the notice requirements for mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations at covered establishments. As amended by SB 617 notices must also include:

– – Whether the employer plans to coordinate support services (e.g., rapid response orientation for job search, resume help, training) through the local workforce development board, another entity, or not at all. If coordinating, services must be arranged within 30 days of the notice.
– – Contact info (email and phone) for the local workforce development board, plus a standardized description: “Local Workforce Development Boards and their partners help laid off workers find new jobs. Visit an America’s Job Center of California location near you. You can get help with your resume, practice interviewing, search for jobs, and more. You can also learn about training programs to help start a new career.”
– – A description of the statewide food assistance program known as CalFresh (California’s version of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, under Welfare and Institutions Code Chapter 10, commencing with § 18900), along with the CalFresh benefits helpline and a link to the CalFresh website. This addition aims to inform workers about access to food benefits during potential unemployment.
– – A functioning employer email and phone number for contact.

SB 617 introduces new subsections (c), (d), and (e) to Labor Code § 1401, while renumbering the prior subsection (c) (regarding exceptions for physical calamity or war) to (f). The notices must still include all elements required by the federal WARN Act (29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.), such as the expected date of the action, affected job titles, and contact details, but now incorporate additional employee-focused information.

For the full statutory text, refer to the chaptered version of SB 617 on the California Legislative Information website. Employers are advised to consult legal counsel or the Employment Development Department for guidance on implementation.

View More

Congress Proposes Changes to Federal WARN Act

WorkCompAcademy

The Fair Warning Act of 2025, introduced as H.R. 5761 in the 119th Congress, represents a significant proposed overhaul of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, which has remained largely unchanged since its enactment in 1988. Sponsored by Representatives Emilia Strong Sykes (D-OH), Debbie Dingell (D-MI), and Nikki Budzinski (D-IL).

The bill aims to modernize worker protections in response to evolving economic conditions, including surges in layoffs driven by automation, AI, and corporate restructuring. As of January 2026, the bill remains in the early stages, having been referred to the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, with no Republican cosponsors.

Enacted in 1988, the WARN Act requires employers to provide 60 days’ advance notice to affected employees, their representatives (e.g., unions), and certain government officials before implementing a plant closing or mass layoff. It applies to businesses with 100 or more full-time employees (or 100 employees working at least 4,000 hours per week, excluding overtime).

Key triggers include:

– – Plant Closing: The shutdown of a single site (or one or more facilities or operating units within it) resulting in employment loss for 50 or more employees during any 30-day period.
– – Mass Layoff: Employment loss at a single site during any 30-day period for 500 or more employees, or for 50-499 employees if they constitute at least 33% of the active workforce at the site.

“Employment loss” is defined as termination (other than for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement), a layoff exceeding six months, or a reduction in hours of more than 50% during each month of any six-month period. Part-time employees are generally excluded from threshold counts.

Enforcement is primarily through private lawsuits, with remedies limited to up to 60 days’ back pay and benefits for violations. There are no civil penalties, and the statute of limitations varies by state (as it borrows from analogous state laws). Exceptions exist for unforeseen business circumstances, faltering companies seeking capital, and natural disasters, allowing reduced notice if justified.

H.R. 5761 seeks to expand coverage, strengthen enforcement, and close loopholes in the WARN Act by lowering thresholds, extending notice periods, broadening definitions, and enhancing penalties.

For example the existing WARN Act applies to businesses with 100+ full-time employees or 100+ employees working 4,000+ hours/week (excluding part-time). Focuses on single entities.

The proposed law would apply to businesses with 50+ employees (including part-time) or $2M+ annual payroll. Extends liability to parents, affiliates, or contractors based on control factors (e.g., common oownership, shared policies).

These changes would align federal law more closely with state “mini-WARN” acts in places like California, New York, and Illinois, which often have lower thresholds (e.g., 50 employees) and longer notice periods (e.g., 90 days). For employers, this means earlier planning for restructurings, clearer remote work policies, and potential interactions with state laws requiring the most protective standards.

The existing 1988 version of the Federal WARN ACT can be found in 29 USC Chapter 23. Employers are advised to consult legal counsel for guidance on implementation.

View More

January 12, 2026 – News Podcast

WorkCompAcademy

Rene Thomas Folse, JD, Ph.D. is the host for this edition which reports on the following news stories: Pension Denied for Injured Deputy’s Unreasonable Refusal of Surgery. Court Denies Carriers Suit Against Attorneys for Worker’s Fraudulent Claim. Admin Remedies Not Required for Firefighter’s Whistleblower Action. Law Violation Not Required for Application of Whistleblower Protections. Superior Court Judge Resigns & Pleads Guilty to Defrauding SIBTF. S.F. City Official to Serve 3 Years for $600K Work Comp Fund Theft. Proposed New Law Takes Aim at Insurance Company Conduct. Research Lab to Pay $1M for Controlled Substances Violations.

View More

Ventura Staffing Company to Pay $650K for Fake Comp Policies

WorkCompAcademy

The Ventura County District Attorney announced that temporary staffing agency Man Staffing, LLC will pay $650,000 in civil penalties and restitution for failing to carry workers’ compensation insurance for its temporary employees from at least 2017 through 2023.

“Man Staffing’s refusal to obtain workers’ compensation insurance from licensed insurers shows a blatant disregard for worker safety and a willingness to gain an unfair advantage over other staffing companies that follow the law,” District Attorney Nasarenko said.

From 2015 to 2023, Man Staffing, LLC and several related businesses were owned and operated in Ventura County by Miguel Angel Navarro and his daughters. During that time, Man Staffing supplied temporary workers to more than a dozen businesses throughout the county. Although Man Staffing’s contracts promised clients that its workers were covered by workers’ compensation insurance, the company repeatedly avoided obtaining lawful coverage.

Between 2015 and 2018, Man Staffing created fake certificates of insurance using stolen policy numbers and provided them to clients as proof of coverage. In other instances, the company claimed to have insurance through unlicensed, out-of-state entities that were not legally allowed to issue workers’ compensation policies in California. In one case, Man Staffing attempted to contract with an entity that had already been ordered by the California Department of Insurance to stop doing business in the state.

From 2018 through 2023, Man Staffing claimed it obtained coverage through several Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs), primarily based in Fresno. However, Man Staffing’s employees were never actually insured. For years, Man Staffing and its owners knew the company was uninsured and were repeatedly informed by attorneys representing injured workers that the claimed policies were fraudulent or did not apply to Man Staffing. The company resolved injury claims by paying settlements directly to employees rather than through insurance.

Under the judgment, Man Staffing will pay $500,000 in civil penalties and $150,000 in restitution to the Uninsured Employer’s Benefit Trust Fund, which is administered by the California Department of Industrial Relations. The company and its related businesses are also required to obtain valid workers’ compensation insurance from a licensed insurer and face additional penalties if they fail to comply. Man Staffing is prohibited from renting, borrowing, or “piggybacking” on another company’s insurance policy and is permanently barred from working with the unlicensed entities or individuals from whom it previously attempted to obtain coverage.

This case was prosecuted by Senior Deputy District Attorney Andrew Reid, a member of the Ventura County District Attorney’s Office Consumer Protection Unit, after a multi-year investigation into Man Staffing’s business practices and workers’ compensation insurance coverage by the District Attorney’s Office Bureau of Investigation.

View More

Bristol Myers Squibb & Microsoft AI-Driven Lung Cancer Detection

WorkCompAcademy

Bristol Myers Squibb just announced an agreement with Microsoft for AI-powered radiology and clinical workflow technologies, aiming to accelerate early detection of lung cancer.

Through this digital health collaboration, U.S. FDA-cleared radiology AI algorithms will be deployed via Microsoft’s Precision Imaging Network, part of Microsoft for Healthcare radiology solutions. Today, more than 80% of hospitals in the U.S. use Microsoft’s network to share medical imaging and access third-party imaging AI. AI capabilities available through Precision Imaging Network can automatically analyze X-ray and CT images to help identify lung disease, supporting radiologists in their daily workflow and helping reduce clinical workload. These advanced AI algorithms can help surface hard to detect lung nodules, potentially identify patients at earlier stages of lung cancer, and help triage them for appropriate care.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States, with approximately 125,000 deaths and 227,000 new cases reported annually. Medically underserved populations experience even higher lung cancer mortality rates and are less likely to receive guideline-concordant screening. With more than half of the patients with incidental findings lost to follow-up, the collaboration leverages workflow management tools to track patients with lung nodules through care pathways and help ensure regular follow-up.

“By combining Microsoft’s highly scalable radiology solutions with BMS’ deep expertise in oncology and drug delivery, we’ve envisioned a unique AI-enabled workflow that helps clinicians quickly and accurately identify patients with Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) and guide them to optimal care pathways and precision therapies,” said Dr. Alexandra Goncalves, VP and Head of Digital Health, Bristol Myers Squibb. “An integrated, AI-powered platform that streamlines patient flow can significantly improve operational efficiency and patient outcomes.”

A core objective of the collaboration is to expand access to early detection in medically underserved communities, including rural hospitals and community clinics across the United States. By harnessing advanced AI tools, especially in resource-limited settings, this initiative promotes earlier diagnosis and follow-up, enabling more equitable care for all patients.

“This new Microsoft collaboration reflects our commitment to breaking down barriers and addressing healthcare challenges,” said Andrew Whitehead, VP and Head of Population Health, Bristol Myers Squibb. “At BMS, health equity is not a standalone initiative – it is embedded in everything we do. By deploying this solution and bringing advanced AI tools to the front lines, together we will help to address health disparities in lung cancer.”

The early detection strategy for lung cancer directly supports BMS’ commitment to health equity and its focus on scalable, sustainable solutions to improve patient outcomes.

“With Microsoft’s AI-powered radiology technology platform widely deployed within healthcare delivery organizations across the country and operating behind the scenes, clinicians can more easily identify patients who may be showing early signs of cancer—often before they are aware of any symptoms—and help guide them into the appropriate care pathway sooner,” said Peter Durlach, Corporate Vice President and Chief Strategy Officer, Microsoft Health and Life Sciences. “This is a clear win for both patients and providers and aligns with Microsoft’s goals to utilize technology to unlock insights, increase efficiencies, and improve patient care.”

View More

WCRI Reports on Injectable Therapies in Workers’ Compensation

WorkCompAcademy

Injectable therapies play a key role in workers’ compensation care, yet information on their use and costs has been limited – until now. This new study addresses that gap by examining utilization, costs, key cost drivers, and recent trends across 28 states through early 2024.

Roughly four in 10 lost-time workers compensation claims involved at least one injectable drug or procedure within 24 months of injury, and costs for self-administered drugs, such as those use for weight loss, doubled in six years, according to a new study by the Workers Compensation Research Institute.

The report examines injectable therapies across 28 states representing more than 75 percent of workers’ compensation benefits nationwide, including both clinician-administered procedures – such as epidural steroid injections, nerve blocks and joint injections – and self-administered injectable medications. Waltham, Massachusetts-based WCRI found that injectable therapies represent a significant and growing share of medical spending in workers compensation claims.

The report classifies distinct subgroups of injectable therapies by medication type and injection procedure, identifies those most commonly used in workers’ compensation, and highlights early signs of growth in emerging biologic and regenerative treatments. Establishing this baseline provides a foundation for tracking evolving patterns and understanding their implications for medical costs and care provided to injured workers.

Questions Answered:

– – What are the most common injectable drugs and injection procedures used for treating workplace injuries?
– – How has the utilization of specific injectable therapies (e.g., GLP-1s, hyaluronic acid injections, migraine medications, or PRP) evolved over time?
– – How do utilization patterns of injectable therapies vary across states?
– – What are the costs associated with injectable drugs and injection procedures in workers’ compensation?

These findings are particularly valuable for policymakers and stakeholders because injectable therapies are often clinically complex, invasive, and costly. Understanding their use has important implications for treatment pathways, appropriate care, and overall patient safety and recovery. The relatively high cost of some injectables also underscores the need for oversight aimed at managing medical costs.

View More