Mandates for mask use in public during the recent COVID-19 pandemic, worsened by global shortage of commercial supplies, have led to widespread use of homemade masks and mask alternatives. It is assumed that wearing such masks reduces the likelihood for an infected person to spread the disease, but many of these mask designs have not been tested in practice.
It is assumed that wearing such masks reduces the likelihood for an infected person to spread the disease, but many of these mask designs have not been tested in practice.
Scientists at Duke University went about testing 14 different types of masks to determine which offers the best protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
They demonstrated a simple optical measurement method to evaluate the efficacy of masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech.
The team has found that bandannas, gaiters, and knitted masks are some of the least effective face coverings for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The team conducted a proof-of-concept study, which was published in the journal Science Advances, wherein they revealed that the simple, low-cost technique provided visual proof that face masks are effective in reducing droplet emissions during normal wear.
N95 masks, which are often used by healthcare professionals, worked best to stop the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech.
Some of the best masks include three-layer surgical masks and cotton masks, which can be made at home, the researchers said.
According to the researchers, more research is needed to identify variations of results depending on the masks used, speakers, and how people wear them. However, the study provides an idea for companies on how to conduct mask testing to determine which masks are best for employees.
The team also emphasized that wearing a mask is a simple yet effective way to stem the spread of COVID-19. If everyone wore a mask, 99 percent of the respiratory droplets could be stopped before they reach another person.
This is essential since as many as 40 percent of infected people do not know they carry the virus and can transmit the virus to equally unsuspecting people. Wearing a mask by everyone can reduce the chance of asymptomatic transmission, wherein people who do not feel sick are infected with the virus. If they mingle with other people, there is a high chance they can transmit the dreaded virus.
Since as many as 40% of infected people don’t actually know they have the infection and therefore transmit the novel coronavirus to equally unsuspecting people they come in contact with, "knowing what does and does not stop transmission is critical, the researchers said. So is wearing a mask" ...
It is assumed that wearing such masks reduces the likelihood for an infected person to spread the disease, but many of these mask designs have not been tested in practice.
Scientists at Duke University went about testing 14 different types of masks to determine which offers the best protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection.
They demonstrated a simple optical measurement method to evaluate the efficacy of masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech.
The team has found that bandannas, gaiters, and knitted masks are some of the least effective face coverings for preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2.
The team conducted a proof-of-concept study, which was published in the journal Science Advances, wherein they revealed that the simple, low-cost technique provided visual proof that face masks are effective in reducing droplet emissions during normal wear.
N95 masks, which are often used by healthcare professionals, worked best to stop the transmission of respiratory droplets during regular speech.
Some of the best masks include three-layer surgical masks and cotton masks, which can be made at home, the researchers said.
According to the researchers, more research is needed to identify variations of results depending on the masks used, speakers, and how people wear them. However, the study provides an idea for companies on how to conduct mask testing to determine which masks are best for employees.
The team also emphasized that wearing a mask is a simple yet effective way to stem the spread of COVID-19. If everyone wore a mask, 99 percent of the respiratory droplets could be stopped before they reach another person.
This is essential since as many as 40 percent of infected people do not know they carry the virus and can transmit the virus to equally unsuspecting people. Wearing a mask by everyone can reduce the chance of asymptomatic transmission, wherein people who do not feel sick are infected with the virus. If they mingle with other people, there is a high chance they can transmit the dreaded virus.
Since as many as 40% of infected people don’t actually know they have the infection and therefore transmit the novel coronavirus to equally unsuspecting people they come in contact with, "knowing what does and does not stop transmission is critical, the researchers said. So is wearing a mask" ...
Proposed new law, SB 1399, is so far-reaching that it's being labeled by critics as an existential threat to what remains of the once-booming apparel industry in Los Angeles, which has shrunk to roughly 45,000 workers after decades of competition from cheap foreign labor.
More than a dozen business groups have lined up against it, including the industry's trade association, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Retailers Assn.
But the article published on MSN says that opposition, though, is not uniform as some high-profile L.A.-area companies are backing the bill, including Reformation, which markets eco-friendly women's wear and has a celebrity clientele, and Fashion Nova, the popular fast-fashion retailer, which has been accused of turning a blind eye to wage theft but recently announced changes to its contracting practices.
The proposed reforms follow those enacted in 1999, four years after 72 undocumented Thai workers were found virtually enslaved in an El Monte apartment complex, stitching together clothing behind barbed wire. That legislation made garment manufacturers liable for wage violations by the contractors who cut, sew and otherwise produce their garments.
But in the decades since, worker advocates say that some fashion brands and retailers that carry their own clothing lines have found ways to skirt the law by employing layers of subcontracting between them and the small factories that actually produce apparel.
Random inspections of 77 garment shops conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division found wage violations at 85% of them. Advocates say the situation hasn't gotten any better, with many undocumented Latino immigrants afraid to file wage claims over fears of deportation.
A 2016 state law, which applied to multiple fields, tightened up regulations on piece-rate compensation, which is traditional in the apparel industry and pays workers for every hem, seam and cuff they sew. That law mandated paid rest and recovery time and required more detailed payroll records.
Labor advocates say the rise of fast-fashion retailers such as Forever 21 has contributed to the problem. The L.A. company had been the poster child for alleged wage abuses before it faltered and filed for bankruptcy last year. The Los Angeles Times documented in 2017 how the company had been cited in nearly 300 claims since 2007 by workers demanding back pay for producing its clothing, yet Forever 21 had not paid anything because it was classified as a retailer.
More recently, labor advocates have been critical of Fashion Nova, one of the local industry's rising stars - and were stunned to hear it had decided to support the proposed reforms.
Opponents contend the two companies are outliers and do not represent the practices of the L.A. apparel industry, where the use of subcontractors to assemble apparel has long been standard. They are calling for better enforcement of existing laws.
"This new law is all-encompassing, and it paints the whole industry as a bad apple - that is my problem. We are not all Fashion Nova and Forever 21," said Ilse Metchek, president of the California Fashion Assn. trade group, who fears big chains such as Nordstrom and other retailers will stop contracting for apparel in the state. "You are picking the worst of the worst."
Fashion Nova declined to comment on Metchek's remarks but has announced reforms of its contracting practices. That includes a mandate that its contractors and subcontractors agree to random independent audits and that their workers are paid the applicable minimum wage, which in Los Angeles rises to $15 an hour for employers of all size next July ...
More than a dozen business groups have lined up against it, including the industry's trade association, the California Chamber of Commerce and the California Retailers Assn.
But the article published on MSN says that opposition, though, is not uniform as some high-profile L.A.-area companies are backing the bill, including Reformation, which markets eco-friendly women's wear and has a celebrity clientele, and Fashion Nova, the popular fast-fashion retailer, which has been accused of turning a blind eye to wage theft but recently announced changes to its contracting practices.
The proposed reforms follow those enacted in 1999, four years after 72 undocumented Thai workers were found virtually enslaved in an El Monte apartment complex, stitching together clothing behind barbed wire. That legislation made garment manufacturers liable for wage violations by the contractors who cut, sew and otherwise produce their garments.
But in the decades since, worker advocates say that some fashion brands and retailers that carry their own clothing lines have found ways to skirt the law by employing layers of subcontracting between them and the small factories that actually produce apparel.
Random inspections of 77 garment shops conducted in 2015 and 2016 by the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division found wage violations at 85% of them. Advocates say the situation hasn't gotten any better, with many undocumented Latino immigrants afraid to file wage claims over fears of deportation.
A 2016 state law, which applied to multiple fields, tightened up regulations on piece-rate compensation, which is traditional in the apparel industry and pays workers for every hem, seam and cuff they sew. That law mandated paid rest and recovery time and required more detailed payroll records.
Labor advocates say the rise of fast-fashion retailers such as Forever 21 has contributed to the problem. The L.A. company had been the poster child for alleged wage abuses before it faltered and filed for bankruptcy last year. The Los Angeles Times documented in 2017 how the company had been cited in nearly 300 claims since 2007 by workers demanding back pay for producing its clothing, yet Forever 21 had not paid anything because it was classified as a retailer.
More recently, labor advocates have been critical of Fashion Nova, one of the local industry's rising stars - and were stunned to hear it had decided to support the proposed reforms.
Opponents contend the two companies are outliers and do not represent the practices of the L.A. apparel industry, where the use of subcontractors to assemble apparel has long been standard. They are calling for better enforcement of existing laws.
"This new law is all-encompassing, and it paints the whole industry as a bad apple - that is my problem. We are not all Fashion Nova and Forever 21," said Ilse Metchek, president of the California Fashion Assn. trade group, who fears big chains such as Nordstrom and other retailers will stop contracting for apparel in the state. "You are picking the worst of the worst."
Fashion Nova declined to comment on Metchek's remarks but has announced reforms of its contracting practices. That includes a mandate that its contractors and subcontractors agree to random independent audits and that their workers are paid the applicable minimum wage, which in Los Angeles rises to $15 an hour for employers of all size next July ...
$2.6 billion! That’s how much Tuft’s University research says it costs to bring a new drug from the research lab to the pharmacy counter. The full research, development and approval process can last from 12 to 15 years.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is a science-led organization in charge of overseeing the drug approval process before a drug is marketed. CDER ensures that both brand and generic drugs work correctly and that the health benefits outweigh the known risks.
In the manufacturer's early phases of drug discovery (preclinical research) they are synthesizing and screening a drug candidate for toxicity in animals before the medicine moves on to human trials. The sponsor files an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application that details specifics such as chemistry, manufacturing and the initial plans for human testing.
A drug then undergoes several years of laboratory testing before a New Drug Application (NDA) is made to the FDA to begin testing the drug in humans. Only one in 1000 of the compounds that enter laboratory testing will ever make it to human testing.
If the FDA gives the green light, the investigational drug will then enter three phases of human clinical trials:
-- Phase 1: About 20 to 80 healthy volunteers to establish a drug's safety and profile, and takes about 1 year.
-- Phase 2: Roughly 100 to 300 patient volunteers to assess the drug's effectiveness in those with a specific condition or disease. This phase runs about 2 years.
-- Phase 3: Typically, several thousand patients are monitored in clinics and hospitals to carefully determine effectiveness and identify further side effects.This phase runs about about 3 years on average.
For an NDA, the company writes and submits an application which includes thousands of pages to the FDA for review and approval. The NDA is the official request for US approval of a drug. The FDA team has 60 days to review the NDA and determine if it will be filed for further review.
A group of independent physicians and other clinicians, called an FDA Advisory Board, meets to discuss the NDA with the FDA reviewers and manufacturer of the product. These meetings often take one or two days. After the meeting, the Advisory Board will make a recommendation for approval, or not, to the FDA, usually through a vote. The FDA often follows the advice of the Board, but is not obligated to do so.
After final approval, the drug becomes available for physicians to prescribe. However, drugs may not come to the market immediately because of patents disputes, manufacturing issues, or controlled substance designation from the DEA ...
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is a science-led organization in charge of overseeing the drug approval process before a drug is marketed. CDER ensures that both brand and generic drugs work correctly and that the health benefits outweigh the known risks.
In the manufacturer's early phases of drug discovery (preclinical research) they are synthesizing and screening a drug candidate for toxicity in animals before the medicine moves on to human trials. The sponsor files an Investigational New Drug (IND) Application that details specifics such as chemistry, manufacturing and the initial plans for human testing.
A drug then undergoes several years of laboratory testing before a New Drug Application (NDA) is made to the FDA to begin testing the drug in humans. Only one in 1000 of the compounds that enter laboratory testing will ever make it to human testing.
If the FDA gives the green light, the investigational drug will then enter three phases of human clinical trials:
-- Phase 1: About 20 to 80 healthy volunteers to establish a drug's safety and profile, and takes about 1 year.
-- Phase 2: Roughly 100 to 300 patient volunteers to assess the drug's effectiveness in those with a specific condition or disease. This phase runs about 2 years.
-- Phase 3: Typically, several thousand patients are monitored in clinics and hospitals to carefully determine effectiveness and identify further side effects.This phase runs about about 3 years on average.
For an NDA, the company writes and submits an application which includes thousands of pages to the FDA for review and approval. The NDA is the official request for US approval of a drug. The FDA team has 60 days to review the NDA and determine if it will be filed for further review.
A group of independent physicians and other clinicians, called an FDA Advisory Board, meets to discuss the NDA with the FDA reviewers and manufacturer of the product. These meetings often take one or two days. After the meeting, the Advisory Board will make a recommendation for approval, or not, to the FDA, usually through a vote. The FDA often follows the advice of the Board, but is not obligated to do so.
After final approval, the drug becomes available for physicians to prescribe. However, drugs may not come to the market immediately because of patents disputes, manufacturing issues, or controlled substance designation from the DEA ...
The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California Governing Committee voted to authorize the WCIRB to submit a January 1, 2021 Advisory Pure Premium Rate Filing to the California Insurance Commissioner.
The filing will propose advisory pure premium rates that will be on average approximately 2.6 percent above the average approved January 1, 2020 advisory pure premium rates.
In his presentation to the Governing Committee, WCIRB Executive Vice President and Chief Actuary Dave Bellusci noted that absent the estimated impact of COVID-19 claims on 2021 policies, the WCIRB’s recommendation would reflect a modest decrease (1.3 percent) in advisory pure premium rates.
In addition to projecting the cost of COVID-19 claims to be incurred on 2021 policies, the WCIRB’s recommendation also reflected the impact of the pandemic related economic slowdown on wage growth, claim frequency and claim severity.
The WCIRB expects to submit its January 1, 2021 Advisory Pure Premium Rate Filing to the California Department of Insurance (CDI) during the week of August 24, 2020.
The CDI will schedule a public hearing to consider the filing, and once the Notice of Proposed Action and Notice of Public Hearing is issued, the WCIRB will post a copy in the Filings and Plans section of the WCIRB website ...
The filing will propose advisory pure premium rates that will be on average approximately 2.6 percent above the average approved January 1, 2020 advisory pure premium rates.
In his presentation to the Governing Committee, WCIRB Executive Vice President and Chief Actuary Dave Bellusci noted that absent the estimated impact of COVID-19 claims on 2021 policies, the WCIRB’s recommendation would reflect a modest decrease (1.3 percent) in advisory pure premium rates.
In addition to projecting the cost of COVID-19 claims to be incurred on 2021 policies, the WCIRB’s recommendation also reflected the impact of the pandemic related economic slowdown on wage growth, claim frequency and claim severity.
The WCIRB expects to submit its January 1, 2021 Advisory Pure Premium Rate Filing to the California Department of Insurance (CDI) during the week of August 24, 2020.
The CDI will schedule a public hearing to consider the filing, and once the Notice of Proposed Action and Notice of Public Hearing is issued, the WCIRB will post a copy in the Filings and Plans section of the WCIRB website ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation and Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board continue to improve their ability to hold hearings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The following changes are effective August 17.
DWC will continue to hear all mandatory settlement conferences, priority conferences, status conferences, case-in-chief trials, lien conferences and expedited hearings telephonically via the individually assigned judges’ conference lines as announced in newslines issued on April 3, April 28 and May 28.
Beginning August 17, DWC will have a video option available for trials and expedited hearings only. Parties will continue to use individually assigned judges’ conference lines on the day of trial. However, judges will have the option of conducting the trial through the judge’s virtual courtroom if needed. If that is required, the judge will provide a link to the parties allowing them to log into the video platform.
DWC will be using the video platform called LifeSize. Stakeholders should download the software prior to a hearing where a video option may become necessary. Neither DWC nor LifeSize will charge for participants to use the platform.
However, parties will need to have certain system requirements to fully participate in the video option. Parties will also need to have a web camera. Participants without access to a web camera may use a smart phone with the program, although it is not recommended. Additional information on LifeSize and how to use the program may be found on the DWC website.
All parties scheduled for a hearing should continue to call the conference line for the judge in front of whom the case is set, at the designated time listed on the hearing notice. When prompted, the parties should enter the access code assigned to that line. DWC staff will instruct participants as to the procedure to follow during the call.
DWC is in the process of updating its hearing notices to reflect the judges’ conference lines. That change will be implemented on or about August 15.
DWC has also begun hearing Special Adjudication Unit (SAU) lien trials. The same procedure described above will apply for SAU trials.
At this time all other lien trials will be continued. However, DWC anticipates adding lien trials back to the calendar in the near future.
District offices will not hold in-person hearings.
DWC will not accept walk-in filings, walk-through documents or in-person requests at this time. DWC will only accept electronic filing via EAMS and JET File, and paper filing by U.S. mail.
DWC will accept limited email filings pursuant to WCAB’s en banc decision dated April 6 and its newsline issued on April 23. Email filings are limited to documents that are subject to a statute of limitations that cannot otherwise be efiled, JET filed or filed by U.S. mail.
DWC will continue to accept an electronic signature on any settlement documents, applications, pleadings, petitions or motions that are sent to the district offices or filed in EAMS. For all e-forms, parties should utilize “S signature” as shown in the E-forms Filing Reference Guide and the JET File Business Rules.
Injured workers who are unable to file utilizing the available options or need assistance may contact DWC’s call center at 909-383-4522.
The WCAB office in San Francisco is operating with limited in-office staff. The WCAB commissioners and staff continue to work remotely. All practitioners are encouraged to regularly check the WCAB and DWC websites for updates about the district offices’ and the WCAB’s operations during this period ...
DWC will continue to hear all mandatory settlement conferences, priority conferences, status conferences, case-in-chief trials, lien conferences and expedited hearings telephonically via the individually assigned judges’ conference lines as announced in newslines issued on April 3, April 28 and May 28.
Beginning August 17, DWC will have a video option available for trials and expedited hearings only. Parties will continue to use individually assigned judges’ conference lines on the day of trial. However, judges will have the option of conducting the trial through the judge’s virtual courtroom if needed. If that is required, the judge will provide a link to the parties allowing them to log into the video platform.
DWC will be using the video platform called LifeSize. Stakeholders should download the software prior to a hearing where a video option may become necessary. Neither DWC nor LifeSize will charge for participants to use the platform.
However, parties will need to have certain system requirements to fully participate in the video option. Parties will also need to have a web camera. Participants without access to a web camera may use a smart phone with the program, although it is not recommended. Additional information on LifeSize and how to use the program may be found on the DWC website.
All parties scheduled for a hearing should continue to call the conference line for the judge in front of whom the case is set, at the designated time listed on the hearing notice. When prompted, the parties should enter the access code assigned to that line. DWC staff will instruct participants as to the procedure to follow during the call.
DWC is in the process of updating its hearing notices to reflect the judges’ conference lines. That change will be implemented on or about August 15.
DWC has also begun hearing Special Adjudication Unit (SAU) lien trials. The same procedure described above will apply for SAU trials.
At this time all other lien trials will be continued. However, DWC anticipates adding lien trials back to the calendar in the near future.
District offices will not hold in-person hearings.
DWC will not accept walk-in filings, walk-through documents or in-person requests at this time. DWC will only accept electronic filing via EAMS and JET File, and paper filing by U.S. mail.
DWC will accept limited email filings pursuant to WCAB’s en banc decision dated April 6 and its newsline issued on April 23. Email filings are limited to documents that are subject to a statute of limitations that cannot otherwise be efiled, JET filed or filed by U.S. mail.
DWC will continue to accept an electronic signature on any settlement documents, applications, pleadings, petitions or motions that are sent to the district offices or filed in EAMS. For all e-forms, parties should utilize “S signature” as shown in the E-forms Filing Reference Guide and the JET File Business Rules.
Injured workers who are unable to file utilizing the available options or need assistance may contact DWC’s call center at 909-383-4522.
The WCAB office in San Francisco is operating with limited in-office staff. The WCAB commissioners and staff continue to work remotely. All practitioners are encouraged to regularly check the WCAB and DWC websites for updates about the district offices’ and the WCAB’s operations during this period ...
The Labor Commissioner’s Office has reached a $2.6 million settlement with the owners of Kome Japanese Seafood & Buffet in Daly City, securing compensation for 133 workers for unpaid minimum wage, overtime and split shift premiums that were uncovered in a 2018 wage theft investigation. The settlement will also compensate workers for WARN Act violations, which occurred when the restaurant closed without notice.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office in June 2018 issued wage assessments and penalties of $5.16 million to Kome Japanese Seafood & Buffet in Daly City including $4,381,461 for unpaid back wages and $780,400 for penalties. The wage theft violations and civil penalties included failure to pay minimum wage, overtime and split shift premiums. In 2019, the civil penalties were adjusted to $754,950 and the unpaid wages were adjusted to $3,575,433 based on evidence presented prior to hearing.
Notification has been delivered to the current and former restaurant workers of their expected settlement payments and workers began receiving checks this month. The workers are receiving settlement payments ranging from $20 to $47,253 with an average of $14,217 per worker. The settlement also includes $55,000 in civil penalties payable to the state.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office launched its investigation into Kome Japanese Seafood & Buffet after receiving complaints from workers who reported wage theft. The Labor Commissioner’s Office worked with Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus and the Chinese Progressive Association, which represented many of the workers who cooperated in the investigation.
The Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, combats wage theft and unfair competition by investigating allegations of illegal and unfair business practices.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office launched an interdisciplinary outreach campaign, "Reaching Every Californian." The campaign amplifies basic protections and builds pathways to impacted populations so that workers and employers understand workplace protections, obligations and how to ensure compliance with these laws ...
The Labor Commissioner’s Office in June 2018 issued wage assessments and penalties of $5.16 million to Kome Japanese Seafood & Buffet in Daly City including $4,381,461 for unpaid back wages and $780,400 for penalties. The wage theft violations and civil penalties included failure to pay minimum wage, overtime and split shift premiums. In 2019, the civil penalties were adjusted to $754,950 and the unpaid wages were adjusted to $3,575,433 based on evidence presented prior to hearing.
Notification has been delivered to the current and former restaurant workers of their expected settlement payments and workers began receiving checks this month. The workers are receiving settlement payments ranging from $20 to $47,253 with an average of $14,217 per worker. The settlement also includes $55,000 in civil penalties payable to the state.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office launched its investigation into Kome Japanese Seafood & Buffet after receiving complaints from workers who reported wage theft. The Labor Commissioner’s Office worked with Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus and the Chinese Progressive Association, which represented many of the workers who cooperated in the investigation.
The Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, also known as the California Labor Commissioner’s Office, combats wage theft and unfair competition by investigating allegations of illegal and unfair business practices.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office launched an interdisciplinary outreach campaign, "Reaching Every Californian." The campaign amplifies basic protections and builds pathways to impacted populations so that workers and employers understand workplace protections, obligations and how to ensure compliance with these laws ...
On May 5, 2020, the Attorney General of California, joined by the City Attorneys of Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Francisco, filed a lawsuit on behalf of the People of the State California seeking injunctive relief, restitution, and penalties against Defendants Uber Technologies and Lyft.
The complaint asserts that Uber and Lyft have misclassified their ride-hailing drivers as independent contractors rather than employees in violation of Assembly Bill 5 , which took effect on January 1, 2020. That statute is intended to ensure that all workers who meet its criteria receive the basic rights and protections guaranteed to employees under California law.
On June 25, the People moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from classifying their drivers as independent contractors, and from violating any provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission with regard to their drivers.
Defendants opposed the motion. They also filed three additional motions: a motion to stay the litigation; a demurrer and motion to strike the complaint; and a motion to compel arbitration.
Defendants sought to stay the litigation until the Ninth Circuit rules on Uber's pending constitutional challenge to A.B. 5; until the November 2020 election, when the voters will consider Proposition 22, an initiative sponsored by Uber and Lyft that would exempt them from the requirements of A.B. 5; or until the final disposition of numerous lawsuits and arbitrations in which similar claims have been raised.
On August 10, the Court ruled on these pending motions after first declaring that "Defendants are not entitled to an indefinite postponement of their day of reckoning. Their threshold motions are groundless." The case went downhill for the Uber and Lyft from there.
A footnote also proclaimed that the "Court gives no weight to Defendants' surveys regarding how many of their drivers wish to become employees or remain self-employed. A. B. 5 may be unpopular among some of Defendants' drivers, but a lawsuit is not a popularity contest. Nor, as Defendants and some amici curiae argue, is it this Court' s role to decide whether A.B. S 's effects on drivers will outweigh its benefits. Policy judgments underlying a statute are left to the Legislature; the judiciary does not pass on the wisdom of legislation." (
At the conclusion of the 34 page ruling, it was ordered that "During the pendency of this action, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. are hereby enjoined and restrained from classifying their Drivers as independent contractors in violation of Labor Code section 2570.3 ."
"Defendants are further enjoined and restrained from violating any provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission with regard to their Drivers."
This injunction was stayed for a period of 10 days to allow the two companies an opportunity to appeal. Thereafter, "it shall remain in effect through and including the trial of this matter or upon further order of this Court."
Uber said it planned to file an immediate emergency appeal to block the ruling from going into effect ...
The complaint asserts that Uber and Lyft have misclassified their ride-hailing drivers as independent contractors rather than employees in violation of Assembly Bill 5 , which took effect on January 1, 2020. That statute is intended to ensure that all workers who meet its criteria receive the basic rights and protections guaranteed to employees under California law.
On June 25, the People moved for a preliminary injunction enjoining Defendants from classifying their drivers as independent contractors, and from violating any provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission with regard to their drivers.
Defendants opposed the motion. They also filed three additional motions: a motion to stay the litigation; a demurrer and motion to strike the complaint; and a motion to compel arbitration.
Defendants sought to stay the litigation until the Ninth Circuit rules on Uber's pending constitutional challenge to A.B. 5; until the November 2020 election, when the voters will consider Proposition 22, an initiative sponsored by Uber and Lyft that would exempt them from the requirements of A.B. 5; or until the final disposition of numerous lawsuits and arbitrations in which similar claims have been raised.
On August 10, the Court ruled on these pending motions after first declaring that "Defendants are not entitled to an indefinite postponement of their day of reckoning. Their threshold motions are groundless." The case went downhill for the Uber and Lyft from there.
A footnote also proclaimed that the "Court gives no weight to Defendants' surveys regarding how many of their drivers wish to become employees or remain self-employed. A. B. 5 may be unpopular among some of Defendants' drivers, but a lawsuit is not a popularity contest. Nor, as Defendants and some amici curiae argue, is it this Court' s role to decide whether A.B. S 's effects on drivers will outweigh its benefits. Policy judgments underlying a statute are left to the Legislature; the judiciary does not pass on the wisdom of legislation." (
At the conclusion of the 34 page ruling, it was ordered that "During the pendency of this action, Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc. and Lyft, Inc. are hereby enjoined and restrained from classifying their Drivers as independent contractors in violation of Labor Code section 2570.3 ."
"Defendants are further enjoined and restrained from violating any provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission with regard to their Drivers."
This injunction was stayed for a period of 10 days to allow the two companies an opportunity to appeal. Thereafter, "it shall remain in effect through and including the trial of this matter or upon further order of this Court."
Uber said it planned to file an immediate emergency appeal to block the ruling from going into effect ...
Meliton Hernandez Martinez Jr., 23, was arraigned at the Merced County Superior Court on multiple felony counts of insurance fraud and a misdemeanor count of filing a false police report, after allegedly instigating a physical altercation resulting in stab wounds to his abdomen and arm.
An investigation by the Department of Insurance revealed Martinez was on an approved mid-morning work break while employed with a construction company.
During the break, surveillance footage and witness statements revealed that Martinez made inappropriate gestures to a female in a parking lot and was then confronted by the female’s boyfriend, a former U.S. Marine, who asked Martinez to be respectful.
Surveillance footage revealed Martinez began punching the boyfriend in the face multiple times, without provocation. As a result, Martinez was stabbed in the abdomen and the arm, which was later determined to be self-defense by local law enforcement.
After being airlifted to a local hospital, Martinez filed a workers’ compensation claim with his employer and provided false statements in regards to the incident.
Advantage Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company later denied all medical bills in relation to the claim after discovering Martinez was the initial physical aggressor, and toxicology results revealed Martinez was under the influence of alcohol and cannabis at the time of the altercation.
The Merced County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting this case.
...
An investigation by the Department of Insurance revealed Martinez was on an approved mid-morning work break while employed with a construction company.
During the break, surveillance footage and witness statements revealed that Martinez made inappropriate gestures to a female in a parking lot and was then confronted by the female’s boyfriend, a former U.S. Marine, who asked Martinez to be respectful.
Surveillance footage revealed Martinez began punching the boyfriend in the face multiple times, without provocation. As a result, Martinez was stabbed in the abdomen and the arm, which was later determined to be self-defense by local law enforcement.
After being airlifted to a local hospital, Martinez filed a workers’ compensation claim with his employer and provided false statements in regards to the incident.
Advantage Workers’ Compensation Insurance Company later denied all medical bills in relation to the claim after discovering Martinez was the initial physical aggressor, and toxicology results revealed Martinez was under the influence of alcohol and cannabis at the time of the altercation.
The Merced County District Attorney’s Office is prosecuting this case.
...
A man and his company have been charged with violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) by selling a drug claiming to treat COVID-19.
Matthew Ryncarz, and his company, Fusion Health and Vitality, LLC d/b/a/ Pharm Origins, are accused of selling a misbranded drug called "Immune Shot" that they falsely claimed would lower consumer’s risk of contracting COVID-19 by nearly 50 percent, said Bobby L. Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia.
In March 2020, during the midst of the global COVID-19 public health crisis, Ryncarz, through his company, Pharm Origins, created a website and began selling "Immune Shot" for $19 a bottle. Among other things, the website represented that "YOU will learn in JUST MINUTES... how to LOWER your risk of COVID-19 by nearly 50%."
Further, to sell "Immune Shot," Ryncarz and Pharm Origins targeted individuals, ages 50 and older, with heavy-handed sales pitches, such as "The NEXT FIVE MINUTES could save your life," "We are offering you the exclusive price of only $19 per bottle because we know that Immune Shot could be the most important formula in the WORLD right now due to the new pandemic," "Immune Shot is Not a Luxury, It is a Necessity Right Now," "Point Blank, if YOU Leave, YOU are at Risk," and "Is Your Life Worth $19? Seriously, Is It?"
Ryncarz and Pharm Origins sold "Immune Shot" to consumers in the Southern District of Georgia and outside of the state of Georgia. The defendants were charged by way of an Information, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The Information alleges that "Immune Shot" was a misbranded drug within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 352(a)(1), in that it bore false and misleading labeling.
U.S. Attorney Christine expressed appreciation to investigators in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and to David A. Frank, Senior Litigation Counsel with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch, Lynn M. Marshall, Associate Chief Counsel for Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, FDA, and to the FBI for their assistance in this prosecution.
"The FBI and our law enforcement partners will not allow anyone to take advantage of our citizens’ fears during a pandemic like COVID-19," said Chris Hacker, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “It is especially concerning because this alleged scheme targeted citizens who are most vulnerable to the virus."
Please report COVID-19 fraud to the National Center for Disaster Fraud’s National Hotline at (866) 720-5721, or go to justice.gov/disastercomplaintform ...
Matthew Ryncarz, and his company, Fusion Health and Vitality, LLC d/b/a/ Pharm Origins, are accused of selling a misbranded drug called "Immune Shot" that they falsely claimed would lower consumer’s risk of contracting COVID-19 by nearly 50 percent, said Bobby L. Christine, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia.
In March 2020, during the midst of the global COVID-19 public health crisis, Ryncarz, through his company, Pharm Origins, created a website and began selling "Immune Shot" for $19 a bottle. Among other things, the website represented that "YOU will learn in JUST MINUTES... how to LOWER your risk of COVID-19 by nearly 50%."
Further, to sell "Immune Shot," Ryncarz and Pharm Origins targeted individuals, ages 50 and older, with heavy-handed sales pitches, such as "The NEXT FIVE MINUTES could save your life," "We are offering you the exclusive price of only $19 per bottle because we know that Immune Shot could be the most important formula in the WORLD right now due to the new pandemic," "Immune Shot is Not a Luxury, It is a Necessity Right Now," "Point Blank, if YOU Leave, YOU are at Risk," and "Is Your Life Worth $19? Seriously, Is It?"
Ryncarz and Pharm Origins sold "Immune Shot" to consumers in the Southern District of Georgia and outside of the state of Georgia. The defendants were charged by way of an Information, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The Information alleges that "Immune Shot" was a misbranded drug within the meaning of 21 U.S.C. § 352(a)(1), in that it bore false and misleading labeling.
U.S. Attorney Christine expressed appreciation to investigators in the U.S. Attorney's Office, and to David A. Frank, Senior Litigation Counsel with the Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch, Lynn M. Marshall, Associate Chief Counsel for Enforcement, Office of the Chief Counsel, FDA, and to the FBI for their assistance in this prosecution.
"The FBI and our law enforcement partners will not allow anyone to take advantage of our citizens’ fears during a pandemic like COVID-19," said Chris Hacker, Special Agent in Charge of FBI Atlanta. “It is especially concerning because this alleged scheme targeted citizens who are most vulnerable to the virus."
Please report COVID-19 fraud to the National Center for Disaster Fraud’s National Hotline at (866) 720-5721, or go to justice.gov/disastercomplaintform ...
The Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) has issued a notice of conference call public hearing for a proposed evidence-based update to the Medical Treatment Utilization Schedule (MTUS), which can be found at California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 9792.24.6.
The conference call public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 10, at 10 a.m. and members of the public may attend by calling 866-390-1828 and using access code 5497535#. Members of the public may review and comment on the proposed updates no later than September 10.
The proposed evidence-based update to the MTUS incorporate by reference the latest published guideline from American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) for the following:
-- Antiemetics Guideline (ACOEM March 27, 2020)
An antiemetic is a drug that is effective against vomiting and nausea. Antiemetics are typically used to treat motion sickness and the side effects of opioid analgesics, general anaesthetics, and chemotherapy directed against cancer. They may be used for severe cases of gastroenteritis, especially if the patient is dehydrated.
The proposed evidence-based update to the MTUS regulations are exempt from Labor Code sections 5307.3 and 5307.4 and the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
However, DWC is required under Labor Code section 5307.27 to have a 30-day public comment period, hold a public hearing, respond to all the comments received during the public comment period and publish the order adopting the update online.
...
The conference call public hearing is scheduled for Thursday, September 10, at 10 a.m. and members of the public may attend by calling 866-390-1828 and using access code 5497535#. Members of the public may review and comment on the proposed updates no later than September 10.
The proposed evidence-based update to the MTUS incorporate by reference the latest published guideline from American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) for the following:
-- Antiemetics Guideline (ACOEM March 27, 2020)
An antiemetic is a drug that is effective against vomiting and nausea. Antiemetics are typically used to treat motion sickness and the side effects of opioid analgesics, general anaesthetics, and chemotherapy directed against cancer. They may be used for severe cases of gastroenteritis, especially if the patient is dehydrated.
The proposed evidence-based update to the MTUS regulations are exempt from Labor Code sections 5307.3 and 5307.4 and the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act.
However, DWC is required under Labor Code section 5307.27 to have a 30-day public comment period, hold a public hearing, respond to all the comments received during the public comment period and publish the order adopting the update online.
...
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced the proposed calendar year 2021 updates for the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule. The Official Medical Fee Schedule for the California worker's compensation system correlates with Medicare fees. Hence the announced changes will have implications in the workers' compensation industry.
The press release began by highlighting changes the Trump administration was making to expand permanently the telehealth benefits that Medicare beneficiaries have begun receiving during the COVID-19 pandemic, and then discussed changes it was making to the fee schedule -- specifically to the paperwork requirements for evaluation and management (E/M) codes that doctors use to bill for office visits.
"The Trump administration has taken steps to eliminate burdensome billing and coding requirements for Evaluation and Management visits that make up 20% of the spending under the Physician Fee Schedule," the release noted. "These billing and documentation requirements for E/M codes were established 20 years ago and have been subject to longstanding criticism from clinicians that they do not reflect current care practices and needs."
"After extensive stakeholder collaboration with the American Medical Association and others, simplified coding and billing requirements for E/M visits will go into effect January 1, 2021, saving clinicians 2.3 million hours per year in burden reduction," CMS said. "As a result of this change, clinicians will be able to make better use of their time and restore the doctor-patient relationship by spending less time on documenting visits and more time on treating their patients."
The proposed rule lists (on p. 897) the estimated impacts of the rule's payment changes for each specialty, which included losers as well as winners.
Three specialties fare the best: endocrinology, with a 17% increase; rheumatology, with a 16% increase; and hematology/oncology, with a 14% increase. At the bottom are nurse anesthetists and radiologists, both with an 11% decrease; chiropractors, with a 10% decrease; and interventional radiology, pathology, physical and occupational therapy, and cardiac surgery, all with a 9% decrease.
Surgical specialties in general took some of the biggest hits, with cuts in every category ranging from 5% to 9%.
The proposed rule also lists the fee schedule's final conversion factor -- the amount that Medicare's relative value units (RVUs) are multiplied by to arrive at a reimbursement for a particular service or procedure under Medicare's fee-for-service system. Due to budget neutrality changes required by law, the proposed 2021 conversion factor is $32.26, a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.09, CMS said.
And not everyone is happy with these changes. "Under the proposal, neurosurgeons face overall payment cuts of at least 7% at a time when the nation's healthcare system is already stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic," said a joint statement from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS). "The reductions are primarily driven by new Medicare payment policies for office and outpatient visits that CMS will implement on January 1, 2021. Drastic cuts caused by changes to these visit codes ... will undermine patient access to neurosurgical care." ...
The press release began by highlighting changes the Trump administration was making to expand permanently the telehealth benefits that Medicare beneficiaries have begun receiving during the COVID-19 pandemic, and then discussed changes it was making to the fee schedule -- specifically to the paperwork requirements for evaluation and management (E/M) codes that doctors use to bill for office visits.
"The Trump administration has taken steps to eliminate burdensome billing and coding requirements for Evaluation and Management visits that make up 20% of the spending under the Physician Fee Schedule," the release noted. "These billing and documentation requirements for E/M codes were established 20 years ago and have been subject to longstanding criticism from clinicians that they do not reflect current care practices and needs."
"After extensive stakeholder collaboration with the American Medical Association and others, simplified coding and billing requirements for E/M visits will go into effect January 1, 2021, saving clinicians 2.3 million hours per year in burden reduction," CMS said. "As a result of this change, clinicians will be able to make better use of their time and restore the doctor-patient relationship by spending less time on documenting visits and more time on treating their patients."
The proposed rule lists (on p. 897) the estimated impacts of the rule's payment changes for each specialty, which included losers as well as winners.
Three specialties fare the best: endocrinology, with a 17% increase; rheumatology, with a 16% increase; and hematology/oncology, with a 14% increase. At the bottom are nurse anesthetists and radiologists, both with an 11% decrease; chiropractors, with a 10% decrease; and interventional radiology, pathology, physical and occupational therapy, and cardiac surgery, all with a 9% decrease.
Surgical specialties in general took some of the biggest hits, with cuts in every category ranging from 5% to 9%.
The proposed rule also lists the fee schedule's final conversion factor -- the amount that Medicare's relative value units (RVUs) are multiplied by to arrive at a reimbursement for a particular service or procedure under Medicare's fee-for-service system. Due to budget neutrality changes required by law, the proposed 2021 conversion factor is $32.26, a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.09, CMS said.
And not everyone is happy with these changes. "Under the proposal, neurosurgeons face overall payment cuts of at least 7% at a time when the nation's healthcare system is already stressed by the COVID-19 pandemic," said a joint statement from the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS) and the Congress of Neurological Surgeons (CNS). "The reductions are primarily driven by new Medicare payment policies for office and outpatient visits that CMS will implement on January 1, 2021. Drastic cuts caused by changes to these visit codes ... will undermine patient access to neurosurgical care." ...
Citing the risk of contracting COVID-19 at their workplaces, Palo Alto Online reports that a group of janitors who clean Safeway stores across the Bay Area protested in Palo Alto on Thursday to demand safeguards for their health and financial security.
About 80-100 people showed up for an "Essential Workers Caravan" to show support for the contract employees, said Jane Martin, an organizer for Service Employees International Union, United Services Workers West (SEIU-USWW), which represents the janitors at the center of Thursday's action. The workers, many of whom are Latino, are in some cases supporting family members who have lost their jobs due to the economic shutdown, she said.
Ten janitors contracted to work in northern California Safeway stores have tested positive of COVID-19, according to the union, which represents more than 20,000 janitors statewide.
"When the clients come into the stores, everything is clean because of us," janitor Jesus Barrios said in Spanish. Barrios, who lives and works in Contra Costa County, took part in the protest with his daughters, Guadalupe and Susana.
"We are essential workers and we run the risk of contracting the virus. We deserve higher wages because we are at high risk," he said.
The caravan began at a parking lot along West Bayshore Road, near U.S. Highway 101, and drove to the Midtown Safeway on Middlefield Road, where the procession circled around the parking lot. Many participants decorated their cars and tied balloons to their vehicles.
The group is calling on Safeway to add $2 to contracted janitors' hourly wage, which Martin called "hazard pay." That amount is currently offered to janitors who have been directly hired by the supermarket chain rather than by contract.
The added compensation would recognize the dangers janitors face at their workplaces, where the employees often work night shifts after the grocery stores close to disinfect surfaces and clean bathrooms before customers return the following day, she said.
Most janitors are paid $16.20 an hour, a rate that will be renegotiated later this year, according to SEIU-USWW bargaining director Mark Sharwood. Most also benefit from paid family health coverage, up to 50 cents an hour in pension benefits, five days of paid sick leave, six paid holidays, four weeks of paid vacation and paid funeral leave.
Contracted janitors are also looking to receive adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, said Martin, who recalled speaking to a janitor who said his store supplies workers with face masks but at times faces a shortage of gloves.
The group also made calls for the passage of the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES Act), a $3 trillion federal package that would issue a second round of stimulus checks and extend a $600 weekly payment for the unemployed. The legislation gained the House's approval in May and awaits a vote from the U.S. Senate.
Thursday's protest ended at the Stanford Oval to raise awareness of the university's contracted janitors who have stopped receiving compensation since mid-June due to the shutdown. In April, the university announced it would continue pay and benefits for contracted service workers through June 15 amid pressure from the campus community ...
About 80-100 people showed up for an "Essential Workers Caravan" to show support for the contract employees, said Jane Martin, an organizer for Service Employees International Union, United Services Workers West (SEIU-USWW), which represents the janitors at the center of Thursday's action. The workers, many of whom are Latino, are in some cases supporting family members who have lost their jobs due to the economic shutdown, she said.
Ten janitors contracted to work in northern California Safeway stores have tested positive of COVID-19, according to the union, which represents more than 20,000 janitors statewide.
"When the clients come into the stores, everything is clean because of us," janitor Jesus Barrios said in Spanish. Barrios, who lives and works in Contra Costa County, took part in the protest with his daughters, Guadalupe and Susana.
"We are essential workers and we run the risk of contracting the virus. We deserve higher wages because we are at high risk," he said.
The caravan began at a parking lot along West Bayshore Road, near U.S. Highway 101, and drove to the Midtown Safeway on Middlefield Road, where the procession circled around the parking lot. Many participants decorated their cars and tied balloons to their vehicles.
The group is calling on Safeway to add $2 to contracted janitors' hourly wage, which Martin called "hazard pay." That amount is currently offered to janitors who have been directly hired by the supermarket chain rather than by contract.
The added compensation would recognize the dangers janitors face at their workplaces, where the employees often work night shifts after the grocery stores close to disinfect surfaces and clean bathrooms before customers return the following day, she said.
Most janitors are paid $16.20 an hour, a rate that will be renegotiated later this year, according to SEIU-USWW bargaining director Mark Sharwood. Most also benefit from paid family health coverage, up to 50 cents an hour in pension benefits, five days of paid sick leave, six paid holidays, four weeks of paid vacation and paid funeral leave.
Contracted janitors are also looking to receive adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, said Martin, who recalled speaking to a janitor who said his store supplies workers with face masks but at times faces a shortage of gloves.
The group also made calls for the passage of the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act (HEROES Act), a $3 trillion federal package that would issue a second round of stimulus checks and extend a $600 weekly payment for the unemployed. The legislation gained the House's approval in May and awaits a vote from the U.S. Senate.
Thursday's protest ended at the Stanford Oval to raise awareness of the university's contracted janitors who have stopped receiving compensation since mid-June due to the shutdown. In April, the university announced it would continue pay and benefits for contracted service workers through June 15 amid pressure from the campus community ...
The California Department of Insurance announced a settlement agreement with AbbVie Inc. to resolve a lawsuit alleging violations of the California Insurance Frauds Prevention Act involving the marketing of blockbuster prescription drug HUMIRA.
AbbVie agreed to reform its HUMIRA marketing practices in California, including disclosing that registered nurses employed as "Ambassadors" to interact with patients about HUMIRA are actually paid by the company, not a medical provider, and reforming how HUMIRA is marketed to health care providers.
In addition, as provided for in the Act, AbbVie has also paid a combined $24 million to the State of California and the whistleblower who brought the case to the Department’s attention.
In October 2016, the Department began an investigation into AbbVie after recieving a whistleblower case filed by a registered nurse who was employed as an AbbVie Ambassador in Florida.
After its investigation, the Department intervened in that case and filed a Superseding Complaint alleging that whistleblower violated California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act. Among other things, the Department alleged that AbbVie violated the Act by unlawfully providing free and valuable professional goods and services to physicians to induce and reward AbbVie prescriptions.
The Department alleged that Nurse Ambassadors interfered with the flow of doctor-patient communications and did not directly answer questions pertaining to AbbVie marketing activities constituted kickbacks in violation of the Act, including, for example, the provision of meals and drinks to providers outside the context of speakers programs.
While AbbVie continues to deny the allegations, as a part of the settlement, AbbVie agreed to reforms, including:
-- Ambassadors will disclose to patients that they are provided by AbbVie and do not work under the direction of the patient’s health care provider.
-- The company will implement a policy modification prohibiting HUMIRA sales representatives from inviting HUMIRA prescribing health care providers to offsite business meals, except as part of the AbbVie speaker programs.
-- AbbVie will provide patients with the U.S. FDA-approved HUMIRA medication guide and Ambassadors will direct patients to the medication guide and their health care provider regarding side effects and safety risk.
-- The company will provide guidance and training that Ambassadors shall not have patient-specific discussions with providers who prescribe AbbVie.
-- AbbVie employees will be prohibited from describing Ambassadors to health care providers as "extensions of their offices" and from providing to providers any contact information for Ambassadors who interact with HUMIRA patients.
-- AbbVie employees and Ambassadors will not actively participate in conversations between patients and insurance companies.
The complete list of AbbVie's business practice reforms can be found in the settlement ...
AbbVie agreed to reform its HUMIRA marketing practices in California, including disclosing that registered nurses employed as "Ambassadors" to interact with patients about HUMIRA are actually paid by the company, not a medical provider, and reforming how HUMIRA is marketed to health care providers.
In addition, as provided for in the Act, AbbVie has also paid a combined $24 million to the State of California and the whistleblower who brought the case to the Department’s attention.
In October 2016, the Department began an investigation into AbbVie after recieving a whistleblower case filed by a registered nurse who was employed as an AbbVie Ambassador in Florida.
After its investigation, the Department intervened in that case and filed a Superseding Complaint alleging that whistleblower violated California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act. Among other things, the Department alleged that AbbVie violated the Act by unlawfully providing free and valuable professional goods and services to physicians to induce and reward AbbVie prescriptions.
The Department alleged that Nurse Ambassadors interfered with the flow of doctor-patient communications and did not directly answer questions pertaining to AbbVie marketing activities constituted kickbacks in violation of the Act, including, for example, the provision of meals and drinks to providers outside the context of speakers programs.
While AbbVie continues to deny the allegations, as a part of the settlement, AbbVie agreed to reforms, including:
-- Ambassadors will disclose to patients that they are provided by AbbVie and do not work under the direction of the patient’s health care provider.
-- The company will implement a policy modification prohibiting HUMIRA sales representatives from inviting HUMIRA prescribing health care providers to offsite business meals, except as part of the AbbVie speaker programs.
-- AbbVie will provide patients with the U.S. FDA-approved HUMIRA medication guide and Ambassadors will direct patients to the medication guide and their health care provider regarding side effects and safety risk.
-- The company will provide guidance and training that Ambassadors shall not have patient-specific discussions with providers who prescribe AbbVie.
-- AbbVie employees will be prohibited from describing Ambassadors to health care providers as "extensions of their offices" and from providing to providers any contact information for Ambassadors who interact with HUMIRA patients.
-- AbbVie employees and Ambassadors will not actively participate in conversations between patients and insurance companies.
The complete list of AbbVie's business practice reforms can be found in the settlement ...
Liberty Mutual Holdings Co. reported a $320 million net loss in the second quarter of 2020 compared with a $397 million profit in the same period last year largely due to event cancellation losses from COVID-19, natural catastrophes and civil unrest, the insurer reported Thursday.
The net loss was the result of significant impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent economic downturn as well as above average catastrophe losses, said David H. Long, Liberty Mutual Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
"The largest driver of the COVID-19 impact was event cancellation product line, which contributed approximately 9 points," said Dennis Langwell, executive vice president and president of Liberty’s global risk solutions segment, on the earnings call. He attributed about $100 million to property-related losses and expected litigation costs and about $260 million to contingent lines event cancellation.
Incurred losses for COVID-19 amounted to $529 million in the quarter, with roughly half of these losses related to event cancellation. Based on our size and industry footprint, these losses fall within its expectations for an event of this magnitude.
The insurer has "seen some losses come in but not a lot" for coronavirus-related workers compensation losses, Mr. Langwell said.
"But this isn’t over - we don’t know how workers compensation will play out for additional exposures in subsequent periods," he said. "We expect the impact of COVID-19 coupled with the low interest rate environment - to be a catalyst for more meaningful rate increase in workers compensation going forward."
Mr. Langwell said the insurer applied exclusions for pandemics to event cancelation policies beginning in January 2020 and estimates that it could see about $50 million related to additional event cancelations in 2021.
Catastrophe losses of $878 million were up $384 million from the prior year quarter and resulted primarily from a high frequency of severe storm activity and include $147 million of losses related to civil unrest.
On the investment side, realized gains from the sale of fixed maturities were more than offset by losses in its partnership portfolio, which are booked on a quarter lag. Liberty Mutual’s investment income declined to $144 million in the second quarter from $1.37 billion in the same quarter in 2019, according to the insurer’s financial analysis.
Liberty Mutual reported revenue of $10.17 billion for the second quarter, a 5.7% dip in from the same quarter 2019.
In the global retail markets segment, which includes personal and small U.S. business lines, net written premium declined 5.7% in the second quarter 2020 to $6.86 million, but the combined ratio held almost steady at 98.9% ...
The net loss was the result of significant impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic and consequent economic downturn as well as above average catastrophe losses, said David H. Long, Liberty Mutual Chairman and Chief Executive Officer.
"The largest driver of the COVID-19 impact was event cancellation product line, which contributed approximately 9 points," said Dennis Langwell, executive vice president and president of Liberty’s global risk solutions segment, on the earnings call. He attributed about $100 million to property-related losses and expected litigation costs and about $260 million to contingent lines event cancellation.
Incurred losses for COVID-19 amounted to $529 million in the quarter, with roughly half of these losses related to event cancellation. Based on our size and industry footprint, these losses fall within its expectations for an event of this magnitude.
The insurer has "seen some losses come in but not a lot" for coronavirus-related workers compensation losses, Mr. Langwell said.
"But this isn’t over - we don’t know how workers compensation will play out for additional exposures in subsequent periods," he said. "We expect the impact of COVID-19 coupled with the low interest rate environment - to be a catalyst for more meaningful rate increase in workers compensation going forward."
Mr. Langwell said the insurer applied exclusions for pandemics to event cancelation policies beginning in January 2020 and estimates that it could see about $50 million related to additional event cancelations in 2021.
Catastrophe losses of $878 million were up $384 million from the prior year quarter and resulted primarily from a high frequency of severe storm activity and include $147 million of losses related to civil unrest.
On the investment side, realized gains from the sale of fixed maturities were more than offset by losses in its partnership portfolio, which are booked on a quarter lag. Liberty Mutual’s investment income declined to $144 million in the second quarter from $1.37 billion in the same quarter in 2019, according to the insurer’s financial analysis.
Liberty Mutual reported revenue of $10.17 billion for the second quarter, a 5.7% dip in from the same quarter 2019.
In the global retail markets segment, which includes personal and small U.S. business lines, net written premium declined 5.7% in the second quarter 2020 to $6.86 million, but the combined ratio held almost steady at 98.9% ...
Law enforcement authorities arrested four defendants charged in two federal grand jury indictments alleging a narcotics trafficking ring that sold illegal opioid prescriptions for cash through a series of sham medical clinics.
Those charged in the indictments include Dr. John Michael Korzelius, 68, a.k.a. "Dr. K," of Camarillo, who worked at a Santa Ana pain management clinic where he allegedly wrote medically unnecessary prescriptions to "patients" who paid cash. Over the course of two years, Korzelius and other medical professionals working under his guidance, prescribed approximately 439,090 pills of 30mg oxycodone - the highest dose of short-acting oxycodone available, and the dose most popular for the drug-abusing population, according to court documents.
The charges in this matter are the result of an investigation by agents with the DEA and IRS Criminal Investigation into ChiroMed, which operated a group of chiropractic, medical and wellness clinics in Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. Korzelius, along with other medical professionals, including physician’s assistants, allegedly met with fraudulent patients and provided them with unnecessary prescriptions for drugs, including oxycodone.
ChiroMed operated clinics across Southern California, including Santa Ana, Fontana, Westwood, Long Beach, Huntington Park, Wilmington, Redondo Beach, and Inglewood.
The two grand jury indictments charge 10 defendants with a variety of narcotics-related offenses, including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, distribution of fentanyl, and money laundering.
Along with Korzelius, the indictments charge:
-- Justin Douglas Cozart, 42, of Woodland Hills, who operated and supervised the ChiroMed medical clinics;
-- Damoon Joe Navarchi, 33, of Woodland Hills, who assisted Cozart in operating the clinics;
-- Xavier Muduki Mabale, 42, of Anaheim, who is accused of recruiting sham patients to obtain fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions from the medical clinics;
-- Mayra Barrios, 37, of Yorba Linda, who allegedly oversaw the day-to-day management of the medical clinics, including the issuance of fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions to sham patients;
-- Harrison Maruje Mureithi, 42, of Norco, who allegedly coordinated the purchase, collection, packaging, and shipment of oxycodone to buyers on the East Coast;
-- Duncan Muthoni Wanjohi, 23, of Anaheim, who allegedly assisted Mureithi in the buying and shipping of narcotics;
-- Pierre Delva, Jr., 33, a.k.a. "ig Head," of Medford, Massachusetts, who allegedly provided financing to Mureithi to purchase bulk quantities of oxycodone; and
-- Louise W. Mureithi, 69, of Anaheim, Harrison Mureithi’s mother, who allegedly received packages of cash sent to her son for oxycodone;
-- Majid Nojavan, 42, of Laguna Niguel, charged in a spinoff case from the primary investigation, who allegedly advertised oxycodone for sale on Craigslist, sold fentanyl to an undercover police officer, and escorted the undercover police office to an Inglewood medical clinic to obtain a fraudulent oxycodone prescription.
As a result of a two-year investigation into the fraudulent medical clinics, DEA agents seized 20,737 oxycodone pills, and $177,610 in cash. Law enforcement intercepted a mailed parcel contained a teddy bear stuffed with two bags of oxycodone pills.
If convicted of the charges, the defendants each would face a statutory maximum sentences of at least 20 years in federal prison ...
Those charged in the indictments include Dr. John Michael Korzelius, 68, a.k.a. "Dr. K," of Camarillo, who worked at a Santa Ana pain management clinic where he allegedly wrote medically unnecessary prescriptions to "patients" who paid cash. Over the course of two years, Korzelius and other medical professionals working under his guidance, prescribed approximately 439,090 pills of 30mg oxycodone - the highest dose of short-acting oxycodone available, and the dose most popular for the drug-abusing population, according to court documents.
The charges in this matter are the result of an investigation by agents with the DEA and IRS Criminal Investigation into ChiroMed, which operated a group of chiropractic, medical and wellness clinics in Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties. Korzelius, along with other medical professionals, including physician’s assistants, allegedly met with fraudulent patients and provided them with unnecessary prescriptions for drugs, including oxycodone.
ChiroMed operated clinics across Southern California, including Santa Ana, Fontana, Westwood, Long Beach, Huntington Park, Wilmington, Redondo Beach, and Inglewood.
The two grand jury indictments charge 10 defendants with a variety of narcotics-related offenses, including conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, possession with intent to distribute oxycodone, distribution of fentanyl, and money laundering.
Along with Korzelius, the indictments charge:
-- Justin Douglas Cozart, 42, of Woodland Hills, who operated and supervised the ChiroMed medical clinics;
-- Damoon Joe Navarchi, 33, of Woodland Hills, who assisted Cozart in operating the clinics;
-- Xavier Muduki Mabale, 42, of Anaheim, who is accused of recruiting sham patients to obtain fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions from the medical clinics;
-- Mayra Barrios, 37, of Yorba Linda, who allegedly oversaw the day-to-day management of the medical clinics, including the issuance of fraudulent oxycodone prescriptions to sham patients;
-- Harrison Maruje Mureithi, 42, of Norco, who allegedly coordinated the purchase, collection, packaging, and shipment of oxycodone to buyers on the East Coast;
-- Duncan Muthoni Wanjohi, 23, of Anaheim, who allegedly assisted Mureithi in the buying and shipping of narcotics;
-- Pierre Delva, Jr., 33, a.k.a. "ig Head," of Medford, Massachusetts, who allegedly provided financing to Mureithi to purchase bulk quantities of oxycodone; and
-- Louise W. Mureithi, 69, of Anaheim, Harrison Mureithi’s mother, who allegedly received packages of cash sent to her son for oxycodone;
-- Majid Nojavan, 42, of Laguna Niguel, charged in a spinoff case from the primary investigation, who allegedly advertised oxycodone for sale on Craigslist, sold fentanyl to an undercover police officer, and escorted the undercover police office to an Inglewood medical clinic to obtain a fraudulent oxycodone prescription.
As a result of a two-year investigation into the fraudulent medical clinics, DEA agents seized 20,737 oxycodone pills, and $177,610 in cash. Law enforcement intercepted a mailed parcel contained a teddy bear stuffed with two bags of oxycodone pills.
If convicted of the charges, the defendants each would face a statutory maximum sentences of at least 20 years in federal prison ...
The Labor Commissioner’s Office has filed separate lawsuits against transportation companies Uber and Lyft for committing wage theft by misclassifying employees as independent contractors. Uber and Lyft have misclassified their drivers, which has deprived these workers of a host of legal protections in violation of California labor law, the lawsuits say.
The goal of the lawsuits is to enforce California labor laws and to ensure that drivers are not misclassified as independent contractors.
In 2018, the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex ruling established the "ABC test" for determining whether a worker is an employee under various California labor laws. Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, extended the ABC test to additional California labor laws. Under the ABC test, workers are considered employees unless they are free from control from the hiring entity, perform work outside of the hiring entity’s usual business, and engage in an independently established trade or occupation.
The lawsuits seek to recover amounts owed to all of Uber’s and Lyft’s drivers, including the nearly 5,000 drivers who have filed claims for owed wages with the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Moreover, the lawsuits seek recovery for a wider range of statutory violations and damages than those asserted in individual wage claims and other lawsuits.
The lawsuits allege that by misclassifying workers, Uber and Lyft failed to meet their obligations as employers as required by California labor law - including to pay drivers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, to pay overtime compensation, to provide paid rest periods, to reimburse drivers for the cost of all equipment and supplies needed to perform their work and for work-related personal vehicle mileage. The suits also allege the companies failed to provide paid sick leave, to provide accurate itemized wage deduction statements, to timely pay all wages owed during and upon separation of employment, and to provide notice of employment-related information required by law.
The lawsuits, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, ask the court to order Uber and Lyft to stop misclassifying their employees and provide the protections available to all employees under the Labor Code. The suits also seek the recovery of unpaid wages, penalties and interest as well as civil penalties and any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the Labor Commissioner’s Office.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office estimates that Uber and Lyft each employ more than 100,000 drivers. Amounts collected by the Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages, liquidated damages owed to workers, penalties owed to workers, and reimbursement of business expenses owed to workers, will be distributed to all drivers who worked for Uber or Lyft during the time period covered by this lawsuit, not just to those drivers who filed individual claims with the Labor Commissioner.
...
The goal of the lawsuits is to enforce California labor laws and to ensure that drivers are not misclassified as independent contractors.
In 2018, the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex ruling established the "ABC test" for determining whether a worker is an employee under various California labor laws. Assembly Bill 5, which went into effect on January 1, 2020, extended the ABC test to additional California labor laws. Under the ABC test, workers are considered employees unless they are free from control from the hiring entity, perform work outside of the hiring entity’s usual business, and engage in an independently established trade or occupation.
The lawsuits seek to recover amounts owed to all of Uber’s and Lyft’s drivers, including the nearly 5,000 drivers who have filed claims for owed wages with the Labor Commissioner’s Office. Moreover, the lawsuits seek recovery for a wider range of statutory violations and damages than those asserted in individual wage claims and other lawsuits.
The lawsuits allege that by misclassifying workers, Uber and Lyft failed to meet their obligations as employers as required by California labor law - including to pay drivers at least minimum wage for all hours worked, to pay overtime compensation, to provide paid rest periods, to reimburse drivers for the cost of all equipment and supplies needed to perform their work and for work-related personal vehicle mileage. The suits also allege the companies failed to provide paid sick leave, to provide accurate itemized wage deduction statements, to timely pay all wages owed during and upon separation of employment, and to provide notice of employment-related information required by law.
The lawsuits, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, ask the court to order Uber and Lyft to stop misclassifying their employees and provide the protections available to all employees under the Labor Code. The suits also seek the recovery of unpaid wages, penalties and interest as well as civil penalties and any costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by the Labor Commissioner’s Office.
The Labor Commissioner’s Office estimates that Uber and Lyft each employ more than 100,000 drivers. Amounts collected by the Labor Commissioner for unpaid wages, liquidated damages owed to workers, penalties owed to workers, and reimbursement of business expenses owed to workers, will be distributed to all drivers who worked for Uber or Lyft during the time period covered by this lawsuit, not just to those drivers who filed individual claims with the Labor Commissioner.
...
The CWCI COVID-19 tracking tool (see story below) reports a stunning 14,470 California workers' compensation claims filed so far this year. Some estimates show that the State will have twice that number in a few short months.
The Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP - workers' compensation and employment law firm - was asked about how the firm is responding to the pandemic and these claims from the employer's point of view.
Partner Amanda Manukian pointed out the importance of her firm remaining fully operational during the pandemic shutdown. A few months ago, officials arrived at the office building in Pasadena where her branch office is located, and ordered the entire building to be closed within two hours.
Fortunately, she reported that as one of the tenants of the building, she easily complied with this time constraint, and her office was fully functional at home by the next day. Prior to the pandemic Floyd Skeren had installed advanced case management technology across all offices statewide. The technology, along with gigabit fiber internet connections between offices supported a seamless transition for the entire firm to stay-at-home work when required.
All of the firm's staff and attorneys have been fully functional and productive, with essentially no disruption of work flow.
Bernadette O'brien, the firms employment law partner, has held webinars for the firms employment law clients every few weeks. She says that new COVID-19 regulations, both state and federal, are rapidly evolving day by day in response to pandemic. The webinar is updated regularly. and virtually provided for several hundred employers who attend this program for up-to-the-minute compliance guidance.
John Floyd, the firms founding partner, has organized a COVID-19 workers' compensation defense team within his firm. All COVID-19 claims will be handled only by members of this team.
Mr. Floyd has several physicians doing forensic research for his team, identifying and obtaining the medical studies published every few days about the disease. The studies are reviewed, cataloged and circulated to his team.
This science is evolving, and will be used as a standard to review the medical evidence in these claims. The catalog of studies include many topics, such as the effectiveness of various protective gear, the incubation window between symptoms and infection to help identify the best time frame for the infection to have occurred, and other risk factors other than work for purposes of apportionment.
The COVID team has also done considerable legal research on the validity of Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-62-20 which created a temporary presumption of industrial causation for some of the workers' who file COVID-19 claims. The team is now filing briefs in COVID claims across the state, requesting a finding that N-62-20 is unlawful, and invalid as it exceeds the Governor's authority under the California Emergency Services Act.
The brief then argues in the alternative, that if N-620-20 is found to be a valid exercise of emergency authority, then the costs of the presumption claims should be paid by the State of California, as it would constitute a "taking" for which the California Emergency Services Act requires compensation to be paid by the State to the employer for these claims.
Mr. Floyd concluded by saying that if anyone is interested in more details about how the COVID-19 defense team is responding to these claims, they may contact him by phone or email ...
The Floyd Skeren Manukian Langevin, LLP - workers' compensation and employment law firm - was asked about how the firm is responding to the pandemic and these claims from the employer's point of view.
Partner Amanda Manukian pointed out the importance of her firm remaining fully operational during the pandemic shutdown. A few months ago, officials arrived at the office building in Pasadena where her branch office is located, and ordered the entire building to be closed within two hours.
Fortunately, she reported that as one of the tenants of the building, she easily complied with this time constraint, and her office was fully functional at home by the next day. Prior to the pandemic Floyd Skeren had installed advanced case management technology across all offices statewide. The technology, along with gigabit fiber internet connections between offices supported a seamless transition for the entire firm to stay-at-home work when required.
All of the firm's staff and attorneys have been fully functional and productive, with essentially no disruption of work flow.
Bernadette O'brien, the firms employment law partner, has held webinars for the firms employment law clients every few weeks. She says that new COVID-19 regulations, both state and federal, are rapidly evolving day by day in response to pandemic. The webinar is updated regularly. and virtually provided for several hundred employers who attend this program for up-to-the-minute compliance guidance.
John Floyd, the firms founding partner, has organized a COVID-19 workers' compensation defense team within his firm. All COVID-19 claims will be handled only by members of this team.
Mr. Floyd has several physicians doing forensic research for his team, identifying and obtaining the medical studies published every few days about the disease. The studies are reviewed, cataloged and circulated to his team.
This science is evolving, and will be used as a standard to review the medical evidence in these claims. The catalog of studies include many topics, such as the effectiveness of various protective gear, the incubation window between symptoms and infection to help identify the best time frame for the infection to have occurred, and other risk factors other than work for purposes of apportionment.
The COVID team has also done considerable legal research on the validity of Governor Newsom's Executive Order N-62-20 which created a temporary presumption of industrial causation for some of the workers' who file COVID-19 claims. The team is now filing briefs in COVID claims across the state, requesting a finding that N-62-20 is unlawful, and invalid as it exceeds the Governor's authority under the California Emergency Services Act.
The brief then argues in the alternative, that if N-620-20 is found to be a valid exercise of emergency authority, then the costs of the presumption claims should be paid by the State of California, as it would constitute a "taking" for which the California Emergency Services Act requires compensation to be paid by the State to the employer for these claims.
Mr. Floyd concluded by saying that if anyone is interested in more details about how the COVID-19 defense team is responding to these claims, they may contact him by phone or email ...
The California Workers’ Compensation Institute (CWCI) has released an online application to support interactive analyses and comparisons of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 claims. The application is available to the general public.
The new tool features integrated data from CWCI, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and the California Division of Workers’ Compensation, with detailed information on almost 600,000 reported claims for the first six months of accident years 2019 and 2020 - including 14,470 COVID-19 claims from accident year 2020. The application offers four areas of analysis that will let the user explore and analyze:
-- COVID-19 claim counts by month with the ability to segment and filter results by industry, region, injured worker demographics and injury characteristics
-- The declining volume of all reported workers compensation claims by industry and region
-- Denial rates for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 claims by month.
-- The application provides detailed data on a dozen metrics, including claim volume and incidence, claimant demographics (gender and age), region, injury description (nature and cause of injury), payer type (insured vs. self-insured), and denial rates, In addition, users can also access claims data from the first half of AY 2019 in order to view and compare pre- and post-pandemic claims experience.
CWCI plans on regular refreshes of the application to keep it current as well as expanding the features and functions as additional data on claim type and average and system-wide cost become available ...
The new tool features integrated data from CWCI, the Bureau of Labor and Statistics and the California Division of Workers’ Compensation, with detailed information on almost 600,000 reported claims for the first six months of accident years 2019 and 2020 - including 14,470 COVID-19 claims from accident year 2020. The application offers four areas of analysis that will let the user explore and analyze:
-- COVID-19 claim counts by month with the ability to segment and filter results by industry, region, injured worker demographics and injury characteristics
-- The declining volume of all reported workers compensation claims by industry and region
-- Denial rates for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 claims by month.
-- The application provides detailed data on a dozen metrics, including claim volume and incidence, claimant demographics (gender and age), region, injury description (nature and cause of injury), payer type (insured vs. self-insured), and denial rates, In addition, users can also access claims data from the first half of AY 2019 in order to view and compare pre- and post-pandemic claims experience.
CWCI plans on regular refreshes of the application to keep it current as well as expanding the features and functions as additional data on claim type and average and system-wide cost become available ...
Even with proper PPE (personal protective equipment), frontline healthcare workers battling the coronavirus day in and day out are still at a three times higher risk of testing positive for COVID-19 in comparison to the general population. That’s the main conclusion drawn from a recent study conducted at King’s College London and Harvard University, and then published in Lancet Public Health..
Predictably, healthcare workers treating patients without adequate PPE are at a greater risk of coronavirus infection. Not as predictable, however, was the finding that BAME (Black, Asian, and minority ethnic) healthcare workers are at even greater risk of contracting the coronavirus while wearing proper PPE than their white counterparts.
According to researchers’ calculations, BAME frontline workers are at least five times more likely to test coronavirus positive than the non-Hispanic, white general population.
"The findings of our study have tremendous impact for healthcare workers and hospitals. The data is clear in revealing that there is still an elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection despite availability of PPE," explains senior study author Sebastien Ourselin, a professor at King’s College London, in a release. "In particular we note that that the BAME community experience elevated risk of infection and in some cases lack access to adequate PPE, or frequently reuse equipment."
The research team analyzed a huge dataset of both American and British adults (2,035,395 individuals in general and 99,795 frontline healthcare workers). For every 100,000 healthcare workers, 2,747 tested positive for coronavirus. Meanwhile, for every 100,000 members of a general community, only 242 tests came back as COVID-19 positive.
Also, while just over 20% of healthcare workers reported feeling at least one coronavirus symptom (fatigue, loss of smell, loss of taste, etc), only 14.4% of the general population said the same.
This study indicates that PPE, while certainly important, is only a portion of the answer when it comes to protecting doctors and nurses. Besides just making sure healthcare workers have proper access to PPE, the authors say it may be time to start considering additional protection strategies.
Also, equally as important as providing PPE is making sure it is used correctly and properly cleaned before reuse. It’s probably a good idea for frontline workers to avoid reuse of PPE altogether, researchers say.
"The work is important in the context of the widely reported higher death rates amongst healthcare workers from BAME backgrounds. Hopefully a better understanding of the factors contributing to these disparities will inform efforts to better protect workers," says joint first study author Dr. Mark Graham.
...
Predictably, healthcare workers treating patients without adequate PPE are at a greater risk of coronavirus infection. Not as predictable, however, was the finding that BAME (Black, Asian, and minority ethnic) healthcare workers are at even greater risk of contracting the coronavirus while wearing proper PPE than their white counterparts.
According to researchers’ calculations, BAME frontline workers are at least five times more likely to test coronavirus positive than the non-Hispanic, white general population.
"The findings of our study have tremendous impact for healthcare workers and hospitals. The data is clear in revealing that there is still an elevated risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection despite availability of PPE," explains senior study author Sebastien Ourselin, a professor at King’s College London, in a release. "In particular we note that that the BAME community experience elevated risk of infection and in some cases lack access to adequate PPE, or frequently reuse equipment."
The research team analyzed a huge dataset of both American and British adults (2,035,395 individuals in general and 99,795 frontline healthcare workers). For every 100,000 healthcare workers, 2,747 tested positive for coronavirus. Meanwhile, for every 100,000 members of a general community, only 242 tests came back as COVID-19 positive.
Also, while just over 20% of healthcare workers reported feeling at least one coronavirus symptom (fatigue, loss of smell, loss of taste, etc), only 14.4% of the general population said the same.
This study indicates that PPE, while certainly important, is only a portion of the answer when it comes to protecting doctors and nurses. Besides just making sure healthcare workers have proper access to PPE, the authors say it may be time to start considering additional protection strategies.
Also, equally as important as providing PPE is making sure it is used correctly and properly cleaned before reuse. It’s probably a good idea for frontline workers to avoid reuse of PPE altogether, researchers say.
"The work is important in the context of the widely reported higher death rates amongst healthcare workers from BAME backgrounds. Hopefully a better understanding of the factors contributing to these disparities will inform efforts to better protect workers," says joint first study author Dr. Mark Graham.
...
Mitchell International owned Genex Services LLC, a provider of cost containment technology, clinical services, and disability management, announced it has finalized its acquisition of Coventry Workers’ Comp Services from CVS Health.
Coventry Workers’ Comp Services is a provider of care and cost management programs for workers’ compensation and auto insurance carriers, third-party administrators, and self-insured employers.
Coventry Workers’ Comp Services was formerly a division of Aetna, a CVS Health company.
The acquisition adds Coventry’s leading PPO network to Mitchell | Genex’s continuum of care and cost containment offerings for the workers’ compensation and auto industry.
Based in Downers Grove, IL, Coventry Workers’ Comp Services has been a full-service managed care organization for more than 35 years. Coventry Workers’ Comp Services will continue to be led by Art Lynch, President and CEO, and operate under its brand.
"The future brings new challenges and opportunities to our markets, and we’re proud to join the Mitchell | Genex team in enhancing and developing new strategies to help clients meet the evolving demands of our industry," said Lynch.
The financial terms of the transaction are not being disclosed.
...
Coventry Workers’ Comp Services is a provider of care and cost management programs for workers’ compensation and auto insurance carriers, third-party administrators, and self-insured employers.
Coventry Workers’ Comp Services was formerly a division of Aetna, a CVS Health company.
The acquisition adds Coventry’s leading PPO network to Mitchell | Genex’s continuum of care and cost containment offerings for the workers’ compensation and auto industry.
Based in Downers Grove, IL, Coventry Workers’ Comp Services has been a full-service managed care organization for more than 35 years. Coventry Workers’ Comp Services will continue to be led by Art Lynch, President and CEO, and operate under its brand.
"The future brings new challenges and opportunities to our markets, and we’re proud to join the Mitchell | Genex team in enhancing and developing new strategies to help clients meet the evolving demands of our industry," said Lynch.
The financial terms of the transaction are not being disclosed.
...
