Great Expectations – The new ‘skills-based’ WorkCover Tasmania Board

Title Great Expectations (1946)

Media Release

On Friday 09 February 2018 WorkCover Board Chair, Kathrine Morgan-Wicks confirmed the make-up of the smaller, new skills-based board in accordance with the amended Worker’s Rehabilitation and Compensation Act.

See link to Media Release below:

Media Release – WorkCover Board appointments – February 2018

Legislative Council Amendments

The originally proposed legislation relating to the makeup of the WorkCover Board was amended in the Legislative Council in late 2017.

The Draft Second Reading Speech delivered by Minister Guy Barnett stated:

“Madam Speaker, the form and function of the WorkCover Tasmania Board will be refined and provisions which have proved particularly onerous or unnecessarily complex will be amended. The membership and voting structure of the Board will be redesigned to ensure all members are equipped with the necessary skills and experience to advise and make decisions.”

The bill fact sheet relating to the Government’s proposed legislation stated:

“Amend the membership and voting structure of the WorkCover Tasmania Board to ensure the Board is equipped with the necessary skills and experience to provide advice and make decisions on the broad range of matters within its scope.”

The Clause Notes to the original amendment legislation clarified some detail:

“After commencement of the Act, the Board will comprise of two Departmental staff (including the Secretary) and five persons appointed by the Minister.”

The draft legislation stated that the Minister was to appoint 5 members to the board without any detail about the skills necessary, apart from the assumed reference to the functions of the board.

There were concerns expressed about the amendment bill as it related to the makeup of the WorkCover Board. There were jointly-expressed concerns from TCCI and Unions Tasmania about loss of employer and union representation, but otherwise the change to a “skills-based” board and the extension of voting rights to all board members received broad support. Concerns were expressed however about the absence of detail in the legislation about the type of expertise required on the board and provisions related to board positions. There was no detail in the original amendments that passed the House of Assembly about the necessary expertise of the five persons to be appointed by the Minister.

The changes, if enacted, might have led to a future minister appointing a board with a narrow set of skills, to the detriment of an effective workers’ compensation scheme for Tasmania and reduced ability to meet challenges faced in the future. It was pointed out that a broad set of skills, particularly in relation to evidence-based management of work disability and data analysis, was necessary to meet those challenges.

While noting positive board initiatives such as the  Worker Assist service and the Better Work Tasmania initiative, I had expressed concerns including:

  1. There seemed to be an acceptance of rising disputation rates. (Initial disputes up from under 5% of claims in 2011/12 to nearly 8.5% in 2015/16). No measures had been introduced to improve usage of Medical Panels or other strategies to reduce disputation.
  2. There seemed to be an acceptance of escalating scheme legal and investigation costs (nearly $15M in the 2015-16 year and rising) i.e. significant costs to employers and the community.
  3. Only 45% of premium collected went to benefit injured workers. There was no data on this performance measure included in the 2015/16 Board Report.
  4. Concerns about the data relied upon by the board relating to Scheme Performance (Reliance on the RTW Survey and data provided by insurers)
  5. The Medical Mentoring Scheme (MAMS), set up to assist general medical practitioners to manage cases within the Compensation Scheme, had been abandoned.
  6. There has been delays in implementation of rehabilitation and medical involvement into Board processes via the Rehabilitation & Compensation Committee (although an initial meeting of the Medical Advisory Committee did occur later in 2017).

I was personally involved in presenting a submission to the Legislative Council, along with other representative health professional groups. See link below to discussion paper and briefing notes provided to the Legislative Council:

Discussion Paper for Legislative Council – July 2017

Combined Legislative Council Briefing – August 2017

Hansard (23 August 2017) provides some insight into the Legislative Council debate about this issue:


I am going to refer to another amendment that has been circulated, but it is not on the Table as such at the moment.  I had some discussions with Dr Peter Sharman, which is probably reflected in his email to members.  This is a little along the model used in Western Australia where the representative body is not prescribed, as would be in the case of the member for Rumney’s amendment, but there is a person who has expertise in work-related injuries and who advocates for, or who has experience in respect of, the interests of injured workers.

Clearly, the most well-skilled and experienced people in that area are most likely to be union officials and people who work in the union environment.  They undertake those roles.  It is quite likely that someone involved with the union, either in a senior way or not, could be one of the most appropriate people.

Do you name up the union and TCCI as the main representative bodies?  You could argue that yes, you should, because they are the bodies that clearly represent their interests.  Not everyone is a member of TCCI and not everyone is a member of a union.  With medical practitioners you could say, ‘Why don’t we use a representative group there?’  Which one?  The college of GPs, the AMA?  Who?  It becomes difficult.  Lawyers – do we name up the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance?  Which body?

It is difficult.  If we are looking at a skills-based board, provided the skill set is identified – and this is where I think the Government was wrong in moving right away from identifying the skill set and giving all power to the minister.  With all due respect to the minister; it does not matter which minister it is -“

A later amendment put forward by Ms Forrest read as follows in relation to the Board membership:

“(i)     one of whom is to be a medical practitioner, or a registered nurse, with expertise in evidence-based management of work-related injuries; and

(ii)    one of whom is to be an Australian lawyer with experience in workers rehabilitation and compensation matters; and

(iii)   one of whom is to be a person with extensive experience in the workers compensation insurance industry; and

(iv)   one of whom is to be a person with expertise in the evidence base related to management of work-related injuries and who advocates for, or has experience in respect of, the interests of injured workers; and

(v)    one of whom is to be a person with expertise in the evidence base related to management of work-related injuries and who advocates for, or has experience in respect of, the interests of employers.”

This amendment was supported by the Legislative Council and later accepted by the House of Assembly.

The Legislative Council Amendments also included provision for a review of how the new board was functioning. Hansard (23 August 2017) records:

“Ms FORREST – Madam Deputy Chair, I am inclined to support that this new clause A be read a second time, because we are talking about a separate process done by an independent body.  It is not just a review within the department looking at the functions of the WorkCover board.  This is looking specifically at how things are functioning with this new board structure.  I took on board the comments.  It was a close vote on whether the member for Rumney’s amendment would be agreed to or not.  If the operation of the board does not adequately see employers’ interests or employees’ interests addressed, for example, then noting that in the annual report is unlikely to occur easily.  It is not going to be easily identified that is happening because it is not something the annual report is going to cover.

Sure, the annual report covers the functions of the WorkCover board and WorkSafe.  I believe I have noted that report in the past, particularly when we note the workplace injuries.  I was trying particularly to make the point some years ago that mining is not the most unsafe environment to work in as a lot of people think.  The most unsafe environments to work in are actually the service industries, construction and forestry.

We note these reports but it does not go to the level of detail about how the board is functioning in its new format.  It is reasonable that there is an independent review of this as the new clause says the independent review is to be carried out by persons who, in the minister’s opinion, are properly qualified, but also one or more who are not employees of the state or the agency of the state, so there is that independent oversight.  You can confidently get input from employers and employees to be sure that everyone’s interests are being met.  A friend of mine often raises concerns with me about matters that arise, such as levels of incapacity and how those things are assessed.  There are opportunities to raise those things.  We can ask questions and we can note an annual report, but this is not the same as the reporting them in annual reports.  It is a separate process to see how the new board function is working.

If interests of the key people are not being well served, those in whose interest this bill is all about – the employers and the employees – perhaps it does need review and change.  That is the only way to be really sure.  An independent review would delve right into that and look at it, rather than the overarching question of how this whole department and section is working.”

The New Board

I should explain that I was an applicant for a position on the new skills-based board, but although I had an interview, I was not successful in gaining a position on the board. While there is some disappointment for me personally, there are many positives with the new board appointments and I congratulate the Government on agreeing to the legislative amendments to encourage a better set of skills on the board and the balance inherent in the new board appointees. The new board gives me hope that some of the issues with Tasmania’s workers compensation scheme can be addressed.

The appointee with expertise in the interests of employers (Julieann Buchanan) is an Occupational Therapist (OT) with significant expertise in rehabilitation and injury management, which means, for the first time, there will be expertise on the board related to this field.

The appointee with expertise in the interests of workers (Jessica Munday) has enthusiasm and understanding of the issues as they affect injured workers and experience with the Worker Assist service.

I understand the legal appointee, Mr Graham Wood has experience in acting for both insurers and injured workers.

In addition, the WorkCover Director of Compensation and Communication has changed. Vicki Tabor is an experienced health practitioner with qualifications as a registered nurse with post graduate qualifications  in OHSM and Ergonomics who has worked extensively in the field of OH&S and workplace rehabilitation and, no doubt, will bring additional skills into the WorkCover organisation itself, to complement those of the board. Prior to taking on this role she was Compliance Manager with WorkSafe Tasmania.

One disappointment was that meetings of the newly formed Medical Advisory Committee/Panel to the board (consisting of John Saul [AMA]; Ian Almond [RACGP] and myself [AFOEM]  has been put on hold, pending clarification as to whether the new board supports the need for this advisory group. I hope that this represents only a temporary hold on this important mechanism for medical input into the operation of the scheme.

Overall, I feel quite positive that  the new board, with new and enhanced skills relating to data analysis, rehabilitation and injury management that can initiate evidence-based changes to Tasmania’s WC Scheme.

Let’s hope the legislated independent review in a few years’ time provides a positive analysis of the new board structure.

See our new republishing guidelines if you wish to disseminate this article.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Creating Healthy Boundaries

Screen Shot 2017-07-22 at 10.05.53 am

I recently had a discussion with Greg McCarthy, until recently, CEO of RTWSA (South Australia’s Workers Compensation Authority). Greg explained to me some of the thinking behind the revamped South Australian workers compensation scheme introduced under his stewardship.

While I would accept that it is a political decision to determine the extent of coverage provided by compensation schemes, there is one concept adopted by the current SA model that has relevance to health outcomes. That is the concept of legislated ‘hard’ boundaries.

The limits to an insurer’s liability to provide funding can be ‘soft’ or ‘hard’. A ‘hard’ boundary is one where there is little or no scope for challenge. Such boundaries include cut-off dates, whether for period of income support or age restrictions on claimants, and ceilings on amounts payable. The current SA scheme limits income replacement to 2 years. Even the best lawyer can’t argue an entitlement beyond a cut-off date!

An example of a ‘soft’ boundary is the provision in Tasmanian Worker’s Compensation Legislation (and most worker’s compensation schemes) to limit liability for psychological injuries. The Tasmanian provisions are intended to save employers from liability where a psychological injury results from a reasonable employment decision. These include psychological injury arising from disciplinary action for poor employee performance or the psychological consequences for an employee missing out on a promotion.

In my experience, the reality is that the existance of these psychological injury exclusions leads to an environment where a very high proportion of psychological injury claims in the Tasmanian Scheme are disputed. There is significant ‘collateral’ damage from this provision for workers who have valid claims, but are rejected by the initial claims management processes.

Another ‘soft’ boundary is the stipulation that ‘reasonable’ medical expenses are covered by a compensation scheme. There can be protracted and expensive argument about whether some significant medical procedures, such as spinal fusion or neurostimulator implants are reasonable expenses. Sometimes the legal costs of the ensuing argument is more expensive than the procedure itself! At the GP management level, there can be debate or delays in proceeding with relatively routine medical investigations or treatment, causing delay and frustration.

The so-called ‘Narrative’ test for Victorian workers to gain access to Common Law (as an alternative to meeting the relatively high WPI criterion for access), is another example of a ‘soft’ boundary that has resulted in a burgeoning video surveillance industry to provide evidence to satisfy the legal system in its attempts to adjudicate on access to Common Law.

Although I have not had direct personal experience, I understand that legislated requirements to review work capacity in some Australian Compensation Schemes act as ‘soft’ boundaries. These have resulted in considerable waste of sources to settle the arguments that ensued from these requirements.

The negative effects on recovery and the psychological impact from the delay to resolve issues at these ‘soft’ boundaries need to be factored into the equation to optimise scheme design. What might be a best-practice legal process to negotiate a ‘soft’ boundary, through its inherent adversarialism, will result in a direct financial cost, and perhaps more importantly, often cause a delay that will impact of the health and rehabilitation outcome. This can undermine the intention of the scheme to assist recovery and return to work.

A ‘hard’ boundary alternative to liability for medical treatment, might be to specify limits to spending on treatment to a $ figure per case or having a blanket exclusion for questionable expensive medical procedures. The debate about what is reasonable is held at a ‘system’ level, rather than being worked at on a ‘case by case’ basis where individual claimants are directly impacted.

In my experience talking to patients under my care, the existence of  a ‘hard’ boundary can be helpful in highlighting options available to progress treatment and recovery and remove the delay, cost and stress of legal involvement to pursue an uncertain outcome.


Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

The State of Play in Tasmania


This article is based on my introduction to the presentation by Professor Alex Collie at the Pre-Symposium Seminar held in Hobart on 15 June 2017.

I have previously tried to explain the reasons for my interest in reform of compensation systems. I made an amateurish video to explain, but my wife was aghast that I was wearing what appeared to be a flannelette shirt in the video. That probably represents the Sharman background as farmers on Tasmania’s NW Coast!

As I tried to explain in the video, what I see in my current practice, on an almost daily basis, are workers whose recovery  is unnecessarily impeded by ‘the system’. While some have argued that Tasmania performs better than inter-state jurisdictions, I don’t think it matters too much about how we compare, rather any worker’s recovery unnecessarily affected by the system is a waste. That’s my concern.

I started my medical career in Tasmania in 1981, working at Tullah on Tasmania’s West Coast as the doctor for the Construction Workforce for the Pieman River Hydro-Electric Scheme. I vividly recall 3 fatalities during that period – a construction worker on a power station roof feel to his death, a loader operator in a sand quarry was buried alive when the wall of the quarry collapsed and a diver who died trying to retrieve valuable stainless metal gates used to close off the diversion tunnel from very deep within the cold and dark waters of the Murchison Dam.  During my later period of employment with the Hydro, I recall an incident causing multiple confined space deaths  at the Tungatinah Power Station in the Central Highlands. There were serious accidents that didn’t result in death and even some positive stories. I remember a seriously injured construction worker who went on the a prominent career in Human Resources in the Mining Industry as a result of his incapacity for ongoing physical employment.

What I have seen over the years is a reduction in these types of incidents with improvement in workplace safety generally, as reflected by falling incidence of workplace injury and associated compensation claims. I have however witnessed an increasing problem with chronic pain and secondary psychological consequences resulting in long-term disability following work injuries. Most of these cases end up receiving income support from Centrelink.

The overall trend in claims management has been a tougher approach. I recall the days when the Tasmanian Government Insurnace Office (TGIO) operated in Tasmania and acted as the insurer for the Hydro Workforce. There was sense from the claims personnel of doing what was right for the greater good, not just the financial benefit of the insurer they worked for. That ethos has all but disappeared. In the late 1980’s there was enthusiasm for the new concept of ‘workplace rehabilitation’ and I have a certain nostalgia for a generally positive and co-operative approach to help injured workers back to work at that time.

In recent years, I have become ‘politically’ involved because of my observations about escalating adversarialism and worsening claims outcomes from a medical and rehabilitation perspective. My observation might reflect the change in the work I undertake. I have changed from a role as company doctor involved in strategies for both prevention and rehabilitation through to my current role where I see the worst end of the compensation system – the litigated, controversial and long-term cases of incapacity.

An alternative explanation is that the apparent deterioration in our systems is due to increasing numbers of people with age-related and degenerative disorders being managed through our compensation systems where they don’t really belong. Or perhaps the change results from increased focus on financial outcomes and scheme viability. I can’t answer that, only guess. The evidence might provide some clues.

When I started talking to other practitioners about these issues, I became aware there were similar concerns amongst a variety of medical, allied health and rehabilitation practitioners, both in general medical and rehabilitation practice and the specialities that become involved in long-term compensation cases – pain physicians, clinical psychologists, rehabilitation physicians, orthopaedic & spinal surgeons, and psychiatrists.

Many doctors tell me they only get involved in workers compensation reluctantly and in some fields it is difficult to get a doctor prepared do see a workers compensation case at all.

The other significant development in recent years has been the apparent exponential growth in research in the field of Compensation Health.

The RACP/AFOM document “Compensable Injuries and Health Outcomes” released in 2001 stated:

There is good evidence to suggest that people who are injured and claim compensation for that injury have poorer health outcomes than people who suffer similar injuries but are not involved in the compensation process”


“However, research into causes of poor health outcomes for these people is fragmentary and inconclusive. Not enough is known of the effects of different types of compensation schemes or different methods of management of cases (by all practitioners involved) to allow the development of a  ‘best practice’ model. 

Any attempt to ‘reform’ the compensation system(s) must be informed by further rigorous research”

Since that time there have been organisations set up dedicated to research in this field e.g. ISCRR (Victorian-based) and the Recover Injury Research Centre (Qld Based).

When I was involved in putting forward ideas about how to improve the system, there was fierce resistance, initially from the insurers. I encountered this personally when I made a presentation a few years ago to the Private Insurers Group on behalf of the AMA.  Luckily that initially hostile reception has led to processes being put in place that have allowed constructive ongoing communication to occur between doctors and insurers.

When the same ideas were put to WorkCover as the regulator, it was questioned whether there was indeed any problem at all. WorkCover drew attention to Tasmania’s performance relative to mainland jurisdictions with the conclusion that Tasmania sits at the top of the “League Table” as follows:

  • the lowest proportion of compensated time loss payments (31% off work at 3 months in a 2010 ISCRR study)
  • According to the SafeWork Australia RTW survey, Tasmania achieves a 92% “Return to Work Rate” and 86% “Current RTW Rate”

This data has been questioned as to whether it accurately reflects health outcomes within compensation systems. Whether inter-jurisdictional compaisons can be made using this data has also been questioned, as follows:

  • Much of the data comes from insurers. Time loss data reflects time off where compensation was paid and doesn’t reflect actual recovery times (one researcher has suggested this approach underestimates time off by between a factor of 1 and 7 at one year post claim)
  • The SafeWork Australia RTW survey captures data about whether a worker has participated in any type of RTW programme at a defined point during the course of their injury, not their capacity to return to pre-injury or even full-time alternative employment
  • It is not valid to compare performance between jurisdictions because of the very significant difference between the way in which each system operates

There does seem to be agreement though that, if there was a problem, it is only 5-10% of cases managed through the workers compensation system. The majority of straightforward cases do well. Like in most systems though, it is the complex 5-10% of cases that incur the majority of the costs, both financial and health-wise.

WorkCover have publicised the results of the RTW survey and highlighted that Tasmania is performing well:

For a meaningful debate about the performance of our workers compensation system we need facts and evidence, not just speculation and opinion.

I asked Alex Collie, as former CEO of ISCRR and now Director of the Insurance Work and Health Group at Monash University about evidence about the following matters:

  • How do you measure the performance of compensation systems?
  • Can you compare different jurisdictions in relation to performance?
  • Are doctors withdrawing?
  • What does the existing evidence base tell us about
    • The Policy Environment and how our policy settings affect worker outcomes
    • How interactions between doctors, insurers & employers in injury schemes affect worker outcomes

My personal interpretation of the evidence I had seen was that there is a need for major reform of how Governments should manage “work disability”, including workers compensation. There is enormous waste and “collateral damage” to workers health from liability assessment processes. Resources expended on determining which system injuries affecting work capacity belong within, is a waste within our financially strapped health care system. Tasmania at present is unfortunately at the forefront with extreme pressure on its Public Hospital System. My presentation at the main TAVRP Symposium “The Dark Side of Rehab” on 16 June 2017, focused on that waste.

A link to my summary of Professor’s Collie’s responses to my queries and some of the other key presentations at the TAVRP Symposium is provided below:

TAVRP Symposium Evidence Summary

Posted in Uncategorized | 10 Comments

Waste-Not Want-Not!


I hesitate to admit it, but I have been wasting my time and energy, the medical expertise that I possess and other people’s money.

In my practice I undertake one or two medico-legal assessments as an independent doctor each week on workers I have never seen before. There were about 65 of these assessments during 2016 and about 30 so far this year. About 70% of these assessments relate to injured workers being assessed about their entitlements within the Tasmanian Workers Compensation system and a further 20% are motor vehicle accident cases. They cost the person or organisation who requests the assessment just over $2,000 each, on average. In addition, there are nearly as many review assessments of workers I have previously seen.

On that basis, at this practice alone, over $150,000 is paid each year for independent opinions about workers being managed within the local workers compensation and motor accident jurisdictions. These opinions rarely contribute directly to an injured worker getting better, they are used to sort out whether the person belongs in a compensation system or not, whether they are entitled to treatment and the extent of their entitlements. I like to think my recommendations about treatment or the subsequent resolution of liability issues will actually help recovery, although I have no data about that, except the occasional anecdote There is however a significant body of research evidence that confirms that Independent Medical Examination (IME) processes can have negative effects on recovery and return to work, as well as being a source of significant frustration to the doctors providing treatment.

I have analysed the independent assessments undertaken at this practice on claimants within the Tasmanian workers compensation system. On average each claimant has had several IME assessments conducted by other practitioners before they had been seen at this practice.

I recently reviewed a worker for medico-legal purposes and counted up about 25 reports that had been prepared over the 6 year period of his claim, included more than 10 IME assessments, with the balance being formal reports sought from treating practitioners. Perhaps up to $50,000 had been spent on reports in this one case!

On the basis of the above estimates, it seems likely that about $0.5M annually is spent on medico-legal assessments on the workers being assessed at this small practice alone i.e. extrapolation of this practice’s data to include the costs of the assessments already undertaken by other practitioners.

In Tasmania there are about 7,500 workers compensation claims each year. If 5% become “litigated’ and/or complex, that is about 375 cases per year. Some estimates put the number of complex cases at 20%. That would equate to 1,500 claimants annually.

If my own practice experience is typical of litigated/complex claims, that would mean more than $10M is spent Statewide on IME assessments in the workers compensation system. Add to that the legal costs of both the insurers and the workers, surveillance and related administrative costs and the costs to determine liability and entitlements are very significant.

According to WorkCover Tasmania figures, legal and investigation payments (including IME assessments) in the 2015-16 year were nearly $15M (and rising each year). In addition, there are legal and other investigation payments included in the WorkCover figures for lump sum settlement payments. This suggests that legal and other investigation payments might be as much again as the payments for IME’s.

An important function of the WorkCover organisation is to oversee the system. WorkCover is principally funded by a levy on the premiums charged at a rate of about 4% of $150M total premium pool i.e. about $6M. This represents a necessary further overhead expense on our compensation scheme.

Within just the workers compensation system of a small state like Tasmania there is probably more than $20M spent annually to determine eligibility, entitlements and to oversee the system. A large proportion of this activity utilises medical resources.

There is the motor accident insurance system as well with over 2,500 claims a year and $43M paid in claims.

The total paid is likely to be nearly $30M per year between those two schemes on independent medical, legal and investigation costs without any direct benefit in terms of provision of health care and rehabilitation. These processes also have potential to worsen outcomes and further increase costs by driving up treatment costs and prolonging recovery.


The state health systems are crying out for money to meet the mounting health care costs of a growing and ageing population. For example, there are serious problems with under-staffing and lack of beds at the Royal Hobart Hospital. Better funding for general practice would help keep patients out of hospital, but that will not be enough.

Injured workers and those injured in motor vehicle accidents that choose not to claim and those excluded from compensation systems or don’t recover can end up receiving their treatment through this stretched and under funded health system.

On a national scale the costs of work disability are staggering. Professor Alex Collie from Monash University has estimated that in Australia $25B annually is spent on income support though the various workers compensation and motor accident schemes and the Centrelink Disability Support Pension for people with reduced capacity for work for health reasons.

Real value to the community comes from funding treatment and rehabilitation and improving health and capacity to work. These services add real value, not just sorting out which ‘silo’ a patient is managed within.

The trend in interstate jurisdictions is to limit entitlements for workers compensation, covering only 2 years post-injury. Perhaps it would be better to have clear-cut liability criteria for compensation, e.g. only traumatic injuries and/or time-restricted benefits to reduce the waste of resources on IME, investigation and legal expenses. The resources saved could be utilised to fund return to work services, rehabilitation and health care services to address work disability no matter what is the cause of work incapacity. Some proactive employers already fund rehabilitation and return to work irrespective of causation. They value their workers.

Such an approach also has the potential to reduce the toxic effects of compensation systems,  improve health outcomes and save money, but there would be many challenges in such a change for the current stakeholders and various vested interests.

I will expand on potential new approaches in my next blog article.


Posted in Uncategorized | 13 Comments

Debate about Workers Compensation – Moves to Mid-Winter Hobart!

Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 8.10.58 AM

At the time of the winter solstice Hobart is an exciting place thanks to David Walsh’s MONA with the DARK MOFO and Winter Feast Events. There are challenging events like the nude swim in the River Derwent and entertainment and art events that attract people from all over the globe.

This year there will also be a stimulating series of events relating to the normally dry subject of Compensation Systems and Rehabilitation / Return to Work.

The local professional association of rehabilitation providers, the Tasmanian Association of Vocational Rehabilitation Providers (TAVRP) has organised a Symposium – “The Dark Side of Rehab” with a quality line-up of speakers:

Screen Shot 2017-04-09 at 8.21.21 AM

Here is the Programme

Screen Shot 2017-05-10 at 8.17.05 PM


In association with that event, there will be a number of other events including a Pre Symposium Seminar organised by Hobart Occupational Medicine with Professor Alex Collie presenting a summary of research about compensation health and Post- symposium workshops including a session from the WorkCover Guy, Mark Stipic about overcoming ambivalence  by employers to RTW.

There will also be Injured Worker’s Forum about the need for additional support and representation for injured workers run by Rosemary McKenzie Ferguson from the SA-based Work Injured Resource Connection. Here is the Programme.


More information about these events will be posted soon.

I look forward to meeting you in Hobart.

Posted in Uncategorized

Choosing Wisely – Request for comments

I have become aware that the option of making comments on this article is no longer available.

Choosing Wisely was published recently and I was expecting some feedback from small business on this matter.

You can now comment below.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Choosing Wisely – Workers Compensation Insurance for Small Business


Let’s forget momentarily about the effect of compensation systems on health outcomes. Rather, lets consider the position of a small employer taking out workers compensation insurance in Tasmania i.e. a small business perspective. There is a requirement for such insurance, but how does the business make a choice between the various licensed insurers?

Usually small business use a broking firm or agent to advise them about insurance matters, but how much can your broker tell you?

Some employers, I hope most, would want an insurer that helps them look after their injured workers, not just the cheapest possible premium to meet their obligation to comply with the law.


As a doctor working in the field, I am aware of the different approaches by the various insurers but, apart from insurance premium information, there is no other readily available information to help a small business choose their insurer, unless they have experience with claims to judge for themselves.

I have my own “League Table” of the various insurers based on my experience in dealing with those insurers as a doctor looking after injured workers. Interestingly my own table is quite similar to the ratings of other doctors who work in similar roles and the workplace rehabilitation providers who are prepared to share their own personal views on this subject.

I also have experience from discussions with insurers about communication protocols between my practice and those insurers. There is a wide divergence between insurers about how they are prepared to communicate with doctors. To me, this reflects on the willingness of the insurer to engage and participate in a team process to assist recovery and return to work. Some insurers behave in a way which suggests that believe they should have ultimate control over all aspects of management of the case, including which practitioners provide treatment, the scope of practitioner treatment and management of the worker’s rehabilitation. While the insurers in Tasmania can ultimately be financially responsible for associated costs, I believe there needs to be cooperation and respect for the role of others in the process, whose responsibility is to the welfare of their patients.

In my own practice we have introduced Adverse Event Reporting. Over the last 12 months we have flagged about one adverse event each month. Of the 11 events, 6 occurred with the State Service Scheme, 2 with Allianz Insurance and a single event for Comcare, GIO Insurance and a self-insurer. Most interestingly, the category of event that predominated were issues relating to management of the claim (5 occurrences) compared to 4 occurrences relating primarily to the workplace and the remaining 2 occurrences relating to rehabilitation issues and medical complications. The consequences of the events ranged from minor setbacks to the workers mental health through to significant periods of incapacity for work and even extended psychiatric hospital admission. Luckily there were no suicides in this small group. While the numbers are small and the sample from this practice is probably significantly biased, it does provide a glimpse into the operation of workers compensation systems in Tasmania.

If such reporting was adopted more widely, useful information would be available to all scheme participants.


In New South Wales, the Workers Compensation Independent Review Office (WIRO), now publishes a range of information in their regular WIRO Solutions Brief, including a breakdown of complaints by Insurer. The table below from December 2016 illustrates the type of information publicly available in New South Wales.


NSW WC Data Dec 2016 – Source WIRO Solutions Bulletin February 2017


In the wake of public concerns about the Life Insurance industry, the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) prepared a report in late 2016, Life insurance claims: An industry review that detailed declined claim rates and claim outcome rates for a range of insurance products.

The most marked variation in rates between insurers occurred with Total and Permanent Disability (TPD) claims as illustrated by the table below.

screen-shot-2017-02-12-at-8-03-18-pmCOMPETITION PRINCIPLES

An important market principle is that consumers, in this case employers, can make an informed choice about how they support their workers who are injured in the course of their work. It should not simply be a choice based on price, but take into account the employer’s approach to human resource management.

At present only limited information is publicly available about the approaches taken by various insurers to managing claims from injured workers. The cheapest premium might save money up front, but consideration also needs to be to the less obvious and long term costs associated with an aggressive approach by their insurer in disputing claims or complicating access to medical and rehabilitation management.


WorkCover Tasmania publishes data about scheme performance. In the Scheme Review to 30 June 2016, there is separate analysis of data for the Tasmanian State Service, Self-Insurers and Private Licensed Insurers, but it would help employers, especially small employers without the experience of previous claims, to make an informed choice if scheme performance data was broken down further, separating out the private insurers. The insurers provide the data, so I wouldn’t expect that to be too difficult. It is already occurring in other jurisdictions.

Introduction of new measures of actual health outcomes and adverse events could also be considered, again broken down by insurer.

Perhaps Worker Assist could provide some data as well?

The measures would help small business CHOOSE WISELY in relation to important aspects of human resource management, the health and wellbeing of their employees injured at work.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Tendentious – What Does that Mean?


@Bafflegab1 on Twitter describes himself:

‘Long-time critic of Ontario auto insurers; their defence lawyers; and their hired gun medico-legal assessors. Also critical of plaintiff bar lethargy.’

In a recent tweet, he referred to a judgement in the Canadian Superior Court of Justice from 2004 that I had not previously seen.

The judgement is of interest in that it considers the issue of an IME organisation that sought damages from The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) in relation to a programme “Prove it if You Can” broadcast by CBC that had been derogatory about the conduct of the IME organisation – AssessMed.

Justice Paul Rivard ruled that the assertions made in the programme were objectively fair and there was no spite, ill will, any direct or ulterior motive on the part of the CBC by broadcasting the programme.  He states:

“I have already indicated that the comments in the program were based on true facts. The defendants honestly believed in the truth of the comments. The comments were based on facts upon which a person could honestly hold the opinions expressed. In such circumstances, I conclude the comments were objectively fair”

The judge calculated damages that might apply if his judgement was later found to be in error, however this ruling was that no damages were payable on the basis that CBC had made fair comment.

This brings me to the word ‘tendentious’, a word I had no knowledge of before reading this  judgement.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary this means:

“(of speech or writing) expressing or supporting a particular opinion that many other people disagree with”

Justice Rivard used the term tendentious in the context of describing the approach of Dr Richman, the director and Chief Medical Officer of AssessMed. Dr Richman had prepared an article “Manufacturing Disability” which to Justice Rivard revealed a clear and strong view held by Dr Richman that the majority of claimants studied at AssessMed wilfully misrepresented their situation, and that they did so often with assistance of their health care providers. His judgement includes the following:

‘While Dr. Richman’s opinions find some support in medical literature, they are considered too skeptical by others. Dr. Richman’s research in this area was based on discussions with assessors at AssessMed but not on any empirical or validated study. In my view, it reflected a tendentious approach to assessments, which subjected AssessMed to being viewed as partial to insurers.’

I have learnt a new word and am also aware of a judicial opinion rejecting a claim for damages by an IME assessment firm in Canada against Canada’s national broadcaster after it aired a programme that supported the notion that IME assessors can be biased in their dealings with motor vehicle accident claimants..

Are there any parallels in Australia?

Here is a link to the judgement for those interested:

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

Injured Worker Support and Representation in Tasmania – Do we need more?


In the early days of this site I wrote an article about Injured Worker Support Websites where I asked for comments about the best approach to provide such support. There was a lot of negativity about the WorkCover Victim website at that time. Here is an excerpt from what I considered to be a balanced comment about my article:

“I don’t think websites run by injured workers who are entrenched in their own sick roles or victim roles themselves, will ever be healthy or empowering to other injured workers; its like leaving the lunatics to run the asylum and wondering why no one is getting any better. However, these seem to be the very people who tend to set up these websites and Facebook groups.

Without an appropriately skilled person facilitating or moderating these support websites and focusing its members on positive mind-sets and positive skill building, they devolve into an orgy of victimhood, toxic behaviours and one big pity-party.”

The best known active professional support sites include the New South Wales based Injured Workers Support Network co-ordinated by Rowan Kernebone and in South Australia, Rosemary McKenzie-Ferguson runs the Work Injured Resource Connection which provides, as well as information, more practical help through their ‘Bags of Love’ programme and has set up a Deceased Workers Memorial Forest in commemoration of lives lost due to the work place .

More recently the Injured Workers Group of Victoria has set up a site operated by injured workers (I understand with Rowan’s assistance).

In Tasmania, there is a service for injured workers, Worker Assist, with a focus on providing legal advice to injured workers and assistance with navigating the system, but no independent injured worker support site similar to those in NSW or South Australia. I understand, despite efforts to raise awareness about Worker Assist, that this service remains relatively underutilised.

Worker Assist’s website lists the following services:

“Worker Assist provides assistance, information and advice to injured Tasmanian workers in the following areas:

  • Workers Compensation Claims under the Tasmanian scheme
  • Return to Work and Rehabilitation following a workplace injury
  • Claims under the Asbestos Related Diseases Compensation Fund”

Worker Assist is primarily Government Funded and supported by Unions Tasmania, although I understand ongoing funding for the service is not secure in the long-term.

I recently had a call from a person enquiring about whether I knew anyone who could provide support to an injured worker about to attend an IME assessment with a doctor with a somewhat contentious reputation. The injured worker was not a patient of this practice, but I did my best to put them in touch with a person who I thought might be able to help and advised about the services available through Worker Assist.

I see a lot of injured workers struggling to come to grips with the confusion and loss of control inherent in workers compensation. Many need more than legal advice to help them take control and avoid becoming increasingly frustrated and downhearted.

Judging by the queries I receive from my own patients and now enquiries from other quarters, I believe there would be value in Tasmania dedicating additional resources to injured worker support. I wonder about the value of an Injured Worker Support Service to complement the valuable service provided by Worker Assist i.e. not only advice about legal matters and the operation of the system, but to provide more practical support and positive interaction with other workers who share a similar predicament.

Another issue I have encountered is who, or what organisation, can effectively represent injured workers at a system level? Traditionally the union movement has undertaken that role, but with decreasing rates of union membership throughout the workforce and  a primary union concern about industrial conditions over health issues, (with some exceptions for specific health risks, such as asbestos), perhaps there is a role for a dedicated organisation representing the interests of injured workers, separate from industrial organisations, at least to complement union representation.

For a service to meet the needs of injured workers, I believe it needs to be primarily run on behalf of injured workers by an ‘….appropriately skilled person facilitating or moderating…’ independent of any organisation with a vested interest using sound principles of support that enhances self-reliance and control to avoid becoming enmeshed in conspiracy theories about workers compensation and adoption of a victim mentality.

What type of model would work best in Tasmania? I am not sure, but I like the idea of a website with useful factual information and worker stories, in combination with more practical help, including providing direct support for injured workers by accompanying then to difficult interactions, education and information meetings, and providing a forum for positive interaction between injured workers.

A professionally run organisation could also act as a lobby group to ensure that the perspective of injured workers is factored in at a system level, through interactions with Government and WorkCover and other representative organisations, such as the TCCI, Unions Tasmania, Insurer Representative Groups and groups representing medical, legal and rehabilitation providers.

I expect Worker Assist and Unions Tasmania might be able to provide some insights into the unmet needs of injured workers from their interactions with injured workers.

It would be useful to obtain comments from Worker Assist, Unions Tasmania and interstate Injured Worker Support Site coordinators and any people in Tasmania who might have an interest in such matters.

I look forward to comments.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments

THE GREAT DIVIDE – a sorry tale of lost teamwork!


The Great Divide!


Firstly, let me say welcome to a few new followers to my blog following the release of Mark Stipic’s podcast of a second interview with me on RTW Nation about engagement with general practitioners.Thank you Mark.

Here is a link in case you missed it:

Peter Sutczak introduced me to the ‘modern’ concept of vocational rehabilitation in the 1980’s. He used posters, similar to the one below, to get across the Teamwork Concept necessary to achieve the desired outcome – recovery and return to work.


The concept was that everyone paddled together (up shit creek, if necessary) to achieve the goal that was best for the individual worker, their employer and society as a whole.

How that all seems to have changed (or perhaps was never achieved).

The two sides of the fence!

The Tasmanian Association of Vocational Rehabilitation Providers (TAVRP) has recently advertised its intention to run a symposium in June 2017 to coincide with Dark MOFO and Tasmania’s Mid-Winter Feast. The title is an ominous “The Dark Side of Rehab – A look at the more complex and controversial aspects of occupational rehabilitation”. I don’t know the details of the programme yet, but I expect it will  be interesting.

While TAVRP  is aligned with the peak national rehabilitation organisations ASORC and ARPA, there is another group, supported by WorkCover  Tasmania  called the Injury Management coordinators Association.

Tasmanian legislation makes provision for the role of Injury Management Co-ordinator and once a person has completed a short course they can be accredited in this role and work as independent provider coordinating rehabilitation without the more rigorous accreditation required by organisations to provide the schedule of rehabilitation services defined by legislation.

There appears to be a divide within the world of vocational rehabilitation

Perhaps the same division occurs amongst employers, those that will go the extra mile to support their employees with injury or illness and those who focus seems to be more on workers compensation as a cost of business to be contained. There is probably a third group of employers, those that haven’t even considered the issue!

I am aware of other dichotomies in the world of workers compensation. In the legal world there are plaintiff and defendant lawyers, and that applies very strongly to lawyers who operate in the world of workers compensation. Interestingly, I have heard plaintiff lawyers use the term moving to the “Dark Side” when referring to the world of defendant Law. Perhaps defendant lawyers use the same term for the world of plaintiff law. I am sure the legal profession can enlighten me on this point.

Plaintiff and Defendant Doctors?

Recently an occupational physician colleague asked me why I didn’t immediately object to being labelled a “plaintiff” doctor in discussion at a recent educational meeting about the role of surveillance (another murky issue) in occupational medicine . I answered that I didn’t agree with the label, but am now so used to the categorisation of doctors either on one side or other of the fence (and similar categorisation of every other “player’ in workers compensation) that I hardly notice such labelling any more.

John Quintner, in a recent comment on my recent blog article about an opinion piece from AFOEM President, Dr Peter Connaughton stated as follows in relation to the roles taken by occupational physicians, perhaps referring to the “Dark Side” of occupational medicine.

‘However, many became willing pawns in the adversarial arena, often being on the side of third-party insurers. ‘

It is clear that increasingly doctors who operate in the workers compensation space are being categorised as well, as either plaintiff or defendent doctors. How sad!

Adversarialism as a concept

As illustrated by the diagram below from Culture of Peace Activist, Peter Newton-Evans , adversarialism can become a vicious cycle:


Adversarialism in Workers Compensation

It is becoming clear that over the years there has been a move towards adversarialism in workers compensation, almost certainly to the detriment of health outcomes for injured workers. There are now teams of people whose focus is either on the objective of cost reduction or on achieving health outcomes, but rarely both.

How do we overcome these artificial boundaries and achieve better outcomes all round? Each side of the fence needs to reach out and understand the other’s perspective and try to regain a shared focus on achieving the best outcome for the injured worker. If that goal can be achieved, I expect that costs can be contained.



Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments