All through the Presidency of George W Bush, safety professionals have been critical of the lack of action on workplace safety. As with many issues related to a new Democrat President in Barack Obama, organisations are beginning to publish their wishlists. The latest is the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM).

On 9 January 2009, ACOEM released a media statement which began

“American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) calls on the Health and Human Services Secretary-designee Tom Daschle to address the critical link between the health, safety, and productivity of America’s workers and the long-term stability of its health care system and economy as he begins work on the Obama administration’s health care agenda.”

The requested changes can be interpreted as a criticism of what the situation has been under George W Bush.

ACOEM says the next government

“must put a greater emphasis on ensuring the health of the workforce in order to meet the twin challenges of an aging population and the rise of chronic disease...”

ACOEM President Robert R. Orford, MD goes into specifics

“...calling on Daschle to focus on preventive health measures aimed at workers that could range from screening and early detection programs to health education, nutritional support, and immunizations.”

The ACOEM reform program is based on the following

• investing in preventive health programs for workers;
• creating new linkages between the workplace, homes and communities to reinforce good health;
• providing financial incentives to promote preventive health behaviors among workers; and
• taking steps to ensure that more health professionals are trained in preventive health strategies that can be applied in the workplace.

Dr Orford concludes saying that

“A public investment in the health and productivity of working-age populations through a new preventive-based paradigm centred in the workplace is a public health imperative.”

This type of reform plan makes a great deal of sense and should be familiar to those who have been following the Victorian Government’s commitment to the WorkHealth program launched twelve months ago by the Premier, John Brumby.

Brumby’s media statement at that time forecast that

“Over time the program is expected to free up $60 million per year in health costs, as well as:

• Cut the proportion of workers at risk of developing chronic disease by 10 per cent;
• Cut workplace injuries and disease by 5 per cent, putting downward pressure on premiums;
• Cut absenteeism by 10 per cent; and
• Boost productivity by $44 million a year.

The program was initially estimated to “be funded for five years under a $600 million fund to be set aside from WorkSafe’s surplus funds,” that is, interest gained from the investment of workers’ compensation premiums. It is interesting to note that little is heard of the $600 million figure now. The first stage-figure of $218 million is almost always the only one mentioned. Given that there has been a global financial crash it is not surprising that “surplus funds” have fallen. Why should WorkSafe’s investments perform any better than the superannuation funds and other investment funds?

At the time of WorkHealth’s launch the $218 million program consisted of

• $60 million to enable WorkHealth to visit regional centres and Victoria’s small and medium sized businesses to deliver advice and facilitate the free on-site screening services;
• $28 million in dollar-for-dollar grants for larger employers ( up to $30 per worker ) with payrolls over $10 million to cover the cost of screening and to provide advisory services and lifestyle programs at their worksite; and
• $130 million for prevention programs for those workers most at risk, including the lifestyle change program to encourage workers to lose weight, increase their physical activity and adopt healthier eating habits, as well as an education campaign.

No matter what the ACOEM requests from the new US President, workplace health initiatives will be competing against those requests that ensure jobs before health, just as the Australian government is stressing jobs before pay rises.

The challenge is to create quality jobs and not to measure effort only through a numerical benchmark. We are constantly being urged to work smarter not harder and perhaps we should be working fitter not longer. Applying a numerical benchmark will look good politically but could leave us with an injury and illness legacy through short-term planning. The quality of a job is just as important, if not more so, when returning-to-work when employees can feel uncertain of their status and sometimes guilty over their absence. A valuable job will greatly improve the job satisfaction of the employee.

[Since writing this piece, Tom Daschle did not take up the position of Health and Human Services due to taxation irregularities. The US Government is still to appoint a new Secretary of Labor as the designee , Hilda Solis, is also embroiled in taxation-related issues.]

Kevin Jones' blog is at http://safetyatworkblog.wordpress.com/