Loss and Change

The topic of telecommuting has become a discussion point recently. Obviously the virus, "stay-at-home" orders, and more are influencing this. Telecommuting is happening on a grander scale than ever before, but the idea is not really new. The acceptance of it perhaps is a significant change. 

I recall being stuck behind a bridge closure in the 1990s that prevented daily access to my office. I found I was able to draft some documents and answer phone calls, but my abilities were limited to what case materials I had fortuitously happened to bring home before the closure. I was not able to access my office files remotely, and the idea of email had just become "a thing." My productivity was significantly impacted. I look back in awe and wonder at how far we have come.

Since COVID-19/Wuhan/Sars-C0V-2 (COVID-19) has invaded our lives and consciousness, I have not worked from home. In fact, the effect for me has been quite the opposite, with more hours than normal in the office (there is suddenly nowhere else for me to go). Today though, there are functions of many jobs that are amenable to telecommuting, and others not so much perhaps. I hear stories of people adjusting and adapting, striving to find paths to accomplish more from home. 

Recently, WorkersCompensation.com reported that Not Everyone Has Equal Opportunity to Work From Home. This conclusion is gleaned from a Bureau of Labor Statistics report on data a few years old. The data appears to be self-reported, with individuals representing their perceptions of individual personal opportunities for telecommuting. The report provides indicia of disparate participation opportunities for various demographics. 

One of the critical points noted is that "education is a key indicator of telecommuting opportunities." Those with a high school education were least likely to have a ready telecommuting option. Those with a college degree or more reported this ability at the highest rates in the survey. Professional occupations, perhaps predictably, were more likely to perceive themselves with the ability to telecommute. 

The article also notes that some workers do not have resources. It notes software requirements and security protocols for protected or proprietary information as a barrier. But, on a more basic level, there may be issues with hardware (might some of us not have a home computer? The Census Bureau reports only 87% of American households have a desktop or laptop computer). The same report says that only 62% of American households have the combination of "a desktop or laptop, a handheld computer or smartphone, and a broadband Internet subscription." The fact is, not all households appear equally equipped for a telecommuting experience. 

In another story, TechRepublic reported that remote workers may present risks of cybersecurity. The threat of computer hackers, worms, viruses, and more is ever-present. This year, I wrote on these pages about cybersecurity, See Cybersecurity 2020's Hot Topic and Cybersecurity 2020 Again. The lengths to which bad actors will go to co-opt data and steal is truly fascinating. The simple math is that if one individual is remotely accessing an employer's network, there is risk. With each additional worker doing so, the risk of data interruption increases. This is another stress point of the change, affecting both the convenience of the employee and the stress level of the employer.

Thus, the threats and risks seem to be potentially exacerbated by the COVID-19 pressures to telecommute. While the physical proximity of working in the office may currently present a set of health threats, the telecommuting paradigm may simply substitute for a different set of technology challenges. They are not without solutions. This article provides some recommendations for minimizing cybersecurity threats and challenges. Primary among them is the virtual private network (VPN). Is access to that tool widespread among employees? Or, is that yet another factor that may impact any particular employee's ability to effectively telecommute? 

Finally, a March 28, 2020 article on the British Broadcasting Corporation site (BBC) lamented the COVID-19 effect on "millions of people" who have "lost their jobs." First of all, that tells us that those telecommuting have a duty to be grateful. Working from home may present a myriad of challenges, but the alternatives seem markedly more stark. The story leads with an admission that the unemployment figures, as significant as they are, likely do not even account for the employees that are "gig workers, the self-employed and other freelancers." There are government aid programs through which those less-traditional workers may receive some modicum of support, but it is perhaps more difficult to quantify the effects of COVID-19 in the less traditional work paradigms. 

Other than providing a contrast, the real value of the BBC article is its focus on the natural human "emotional reaction" to job loss. That should not be a new subject for the workers' compensation community. A great many of the individuals injured on the job are unable to return to work (temporarily) or are unable to return to a former occupation (permanently) as a result. In this regard, emotional reaction, the cause of a job loss is perhaps an ancillary fact. The critical fact is likely not the cause of lost or changed work, but the loss of that work itself.

As we learn through the impact of this COVID-19 setting, perhaps we better understand those who currently face the uncertainty and struggle it has caused. But, also perhaps we better understand all injured workers who face similar work-circumstance changes? The impact of change may affect them disparately. Just as workers reacting to COVID-19 may find themselves more or less able to adjust and telecommute, might injured workers generally be expected to have different abilities, capacities, and reactions to the loss from a work accident? Perhaps we learn to commiserate with and have compassion for those whose lives are interrupted, impacted, or changed by the occurrence of an event, accident, or disease? 

In the COVID-19 sense, one counselor calls the resulting unemployment "a crisis within a crisis." The economic impact will be felt by many who never suffer the actual COVID infection. They will have to deal with "processing a loss," that is dealing with the stress of change and separation. This blog has already been focused upon Stress in the Time of COVID, the challenges of being "essential," the stress of change to a new paradigm, and the fact that we will each know someone infected (some of us will eventually, unfortunately know someone profoundly affected). 

Once we realize in either employment or personally that we are "processing a loss," we may be able to predict and understand the "stages of grief." This leads, perhaps, to an ability "to acknowledge the depth of their loss," and work through the emotions that accompany it. There are likely to be emotions, including anger, from the circumstance, the timing, or one's own personal perceptions. COVID-19 is likely to have profound impacts that are vocational, professional, and emotional. 

The BBC article stresses the need to retain composure and separate "elements in their situation they can and cannot control." The suggestion is that focusing on issues that are not within your control may not be productive, while focusing on those you can control may lead to appropriate actions and reactions that will both help with recovering from the loss and building a sense of accomplishment. The BBC suggests that it may be helpful to focus on the longer-term outcome from the recovery rather than the present-day, more temporary, effects and reactions. That does not mean ignoring the present impacts and complications, but looking to the future and the potential for recovery may lead to a more positive outlook. 

These seem to be suggestions worthy of consideration. Admittedly, there is no one way to deal with stress, nor a single way to accept and deal with loss. But, there is perhaps hope in understanding why we feel as we do in a loss. Perhaps this understanding is worthwhile in the sense of how COVID-19 is affecting us personally, immediately. Perhaps, also, it is worthwhile for us in this community to be reminded of our feelings and emotions in reacting to this COVID-19 impact.

Work and occupation are part of what defines us. Loss or change of that identity may affect us, as COVID-19 is teaching. But our very occupation and community are focused on people who similarly, on a personal not pandemic level, similarly suffer the change and loss that may follow a work accident. There may be a similar loss for an employee or employer, feelings of change, remorse, and loss. How each perceives and works through the aftermath of such an event may require the community's patience, compassion, and civility? Perhaps, indeed, there is much we will all learn from COVID.

A Frank Conversation of COVID-19

There is no disputing that COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 has had implications for virtually everyone. There is a public health crisis at our collective door and it is impacting daily life. Workers are concerned about contracting it, employers are concerned about it impeding ongoing operations, policymakers are concerned about its broader impacts, and whether they realize it or not their collective focus is largely on workers' compensation. 

Next week, I will join the CEO of the Workers' Compensation Research Institute, John Ruser, in a webinar to frankly discuss the impacts and implications of COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 on the world of workers' compensation. It promises to be an engaging conversation about perceptions, facts, and the regulatory reactions and challenges of a sudden onset situation that has challenged our thinking, operations, and systems. There is a link below to register for this event. 

Workers' compensation has been likened to oxygen. It surrounds us, unseen and unheeded. We notice it more when we need it. It began as an adjunct to the world of work as the industrial revolution drove us from our agrarian roots, but has become so ingrained in the world of American work that its necessity is now rarely denied. Despite that, it is a subject that is avoided by many, relegated to a conversation focused on "must" instead of "should," and often referred to only in the most scornful of tones. In the end, both employers and employees may find fault with this statutory substitute for our traditional tort processes, and yet each may also find comfort in it. 

Like oxygen, it underlies our existence, our vocational or professional existence. Outside of very small employers (generally speaking, less-than-four-employee businesses are not required to participate, but in some instances, all employers must), workers' compensation, its protections, its costs, and its complexities, is an active element of the employer/employee relationship in America. Business decisions are made and evaluated based in part on the implications of this social insurance program. Like oxygen, we may take it for granted until it is no longer there (or not there as we expected).

The nutshell is that a "grand bargain" was euphemistically struck legislatively between management and labor in the early 20th Century. As the American worker was increasingly engaged in industrial employment, there was an increased risk of injury and disability which had been more familial in the traditional agrarian environment (family farm, a social collective) that preceded the Industrial Revolution. In this compromise, employers and employees each gave up rights and received benefits. It was interpreted as a statutory path to compromise in which there was perceived balance and equity from legislative actions.

In a true nod to American Federalism workers' compensation here has been the product of state law. The protections and burdens are seen as issues of health, safety, and welfare, and for the most part, the U.S. Government has remained uninvolved. There are exceptions in the creation of specific federal benefit programs like workers' compensation for federal employees, the Federal Employers Liability Act (FELA), and most broadly the oversight and interference of the Medicare Secondary Payer process that seeks to prop up underfunded and much ignored federal health care delivery platforms for the poor, disabled, and elderly. Despite those federal involvements, workers' compensation remains predominantly a state system and is thus prone to jurisdictional disparity and distinctions that are often discussion points among those of us who have an academic interest in the Grand Bargains.

Workers' compensation is clearly a socialistic process. It is embedded in our capitalistic economy. There is thus conflict inherent in the inter-relationship. There is friction between the needs of the worker and the employer. That friction may be focused on the costs of injury, treatment, and disability. Some argue that the friction should be less when the employer is not some capitalist enterprise, but the government itself. The payments for and to government employees are largely funded by the government's power to tax (taxation being socialistic in nature, a gathering from the many). As an aside, there has been significant discussion of socializing risk and investment. It is a fascinating subject even outside of the pandemic discussion. 

The purpose of workers' compensation, in the beginning, was clearly upon the occurrence of an injury by accident. There was some event that happened suddenly, an "accident," which resulted in an injury. It was seen as logical that the cost of that event should be borne by the enterprise/business that was gaining from the activity that led to it. There was also a perception that employers were in the best position to promulgate, monitor, and enforce safety measures in the workplace. The propensity to do so was seen as enhanced by the employer having responsibility for the costs of accidents that did occur. Smart employers would strive to maintain healthy and safe work environments in order to minimize injury and cost. That equation is not overly complex. 

The coverage of accidents slowly expanded. There was a broadening of employer liability over decades. Some states included coverage for what became known as "repetitive trauma" injuries, while other states excluded them. There has been ample debate regarding the merits of both courses. Similarly, states legislated the addition of "occupational disease" coverage for employers. Some of these have clear epidemiological evidence of industrial causation, such as Black Lung and the coal mining vocation. Other occupational diseases are less clearly linked through medical science to an industry or occupation and thus may be compensated by workers' compensation upon sufficient proof of causation and relationship in an individual case.

In response to the challenges of proving the compensability of such disease, various states enacted presumptions. A presumption is merely something that is true until proven otherwise (presumed innocent until proven guilty). These were largely for the benefit of "first responders," and have appeared now in many jurisdictions. They concern cancer, hypertension, and other medical conditions that are capable of both occupational and personal causes. The legislative decisions to presume them occupational, like all definitions of compensability, reflects policy choices based upon a variety of considerations and inputs. 

Without a presumption in her or his favor, a worker may face a difficult battle to prove that any particular disease is "occupational" rather than personal. This is founded on the notion that an illness can be contracted by any of us in virtually any location while undertaking virtually any activity (or inactivity). Disease can be mercurial, fickle, and unpredictable. Time and again we experience the oddity of two people similarly exposed to some risk with one becoming ill and the other escaping unscathed. Infection or exposure itself can also be less apparent than an accident, and thus the states that provide compensation therefore have largely required heightened proof to support such liability. In short, if you contract an illness like a cold, how is that shown to be an at-work as opposed to an at-home event? 

Some have argued, with success, that disease is different from accidents. In some instances, the challenges of occupational proof have even been viewed as supporting some alternative social programming in response; a response more systemic than a workers' compensation presumption for certain workers. An example is the Zadroga Act that followed the terrorist acts of 2001 (I presume it remains appropriate to refer to the attacks of September 11, 2001, as terrorism in the age of increasing "correctness"). In that instance, there was recognition that process and science for a multitude of claims might significantly challenge both the workers and employers, not to mention the workers' compensation system. Therefore, a compensation fund and system were created as a legislative response to socialize the broad and intensely personal impacts.

Similarly, there has been recognition that some risks are simply too large for the insurance industry. Another side-effect of the September 11, 2001 response was the enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA). This program provides a "backstop" or stop-loss when systemic events create catastrophic losses in the marketplace economy. This is a government reaction to a perceived significant risk. 

The fact is that workers' compensation, at its core, is a social contract. It is socialistic in that it alters the equation regarding personal risk and injury and places that risk instead upon an employer. Through either direct payment or through payment of insurance premiums, the employer undertakes responsibility for the consequences of its industry or production. To finance that cost, the employer includes that risk among the other "costs" of product or service inputs. In short, the price an employer charges for its good(s) or service(s) includes the cost of, the risk of, injury to those who are responsible for the production. 

If the work causes injury or disease, then the paradigm produces compensation for the individual at the expense of the work. The cost is subsumed into the economic cost of production and spread to the consumer(s). The cost of the risk is socialized. The fact is that when an injury occurs, there is a Someone has to Paycost. Workers' compensation is not about regulating the existence of cost, but about who will bear that cost. I have said before that Someone has to Pay. Workers' compensation strives to provide transparency, predictability, and functionality to the decisions of who pays, how much, and when. 

Then comes a widespread viral challenge such as COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2. The implications for society are widespread and systemic. For the first time in generations, health concerns have sidelined swaths of American workers. There have been factories closed, retail is largely dormant, and the food service industry is largely reduced to curbside or delivery functions. There has been a great resulting displacement of employees. There has been a similarly intense impact on businesses and those who own them. The direct effects are patent and pernicious. 

But, the actual effects of the disease are merely the start; there is also the mere fear of the disease. The Centers for Disease Control noted early that COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 may first produce symptoms or signs fourteen (14) days following exposure. We were therefore advised to self-quarantine (click here for an interesting history of the idea of quarantine) following a "known" exposure. That is no real solution for several reasons. First, and foremost, it turns out that vast numbers of people may be carrying this virus without any discernible symptoms. They do not know they have the virus! How are we supposed to know that they have it when they themselves do not know? Thus, the quarantine solution is troubled at best. 

Second, there are few among us who were mentally or financially prepared to stay home and self-quarantine for two work weeks due to a potential for illness. In recent weeks, I have spoken with people who quarantined as instructed; some who actually became ill during that time, and others who never had a symptom during that time. When one sought testing, and obtained a "negative" result, the advice remained to quarantine against the possibility that exposure had nonetheless occurred and the test as simply done too soon. Thus, some were sidelined for "just in case" and their frustration and financial suffering were palpable. 

The discussion eventually turned to workers' compensation. Should this social insurance cover the cost of the lost work for two weeks of quarantine? The classic analysis yielded "no" because this system(s) covers the expense for injury or disease, not so much the prevention of disease or the "just in case." Employers ordered employees home to prevent exposure, and enforced work absence, but often did not compensate. Those employers at times faced criticism or complaints. However, few discussed openly that employers might have been as financially unprepared to pay workers to stay home. 

In May 2020 we see industry begin to reopen. Georgia and Texas led a move to less discriminate reopening. Florida has undertaken a more measured approach. The expressed reality is that businesses will reopen, and the questions are rather how and when instead of "if." Accompanying this reality is the co-existent fact that COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 infections will continue. The risk is still present. Workers will face exposure, businesses will face the expense of heightened cleaning, reduced sales, and potential for absent employees on little or no notice. There will be managerial and personal challenges for all. 

Thus, next week we undertake to discuss: 

"How have communicable diseases been treated in the past in workers’ compensation?" 

"What has changed about COVID-19?" 

"How have the various states altered the potential compensability of COVID-19 claims?" 

"How would the different approaches to potential compensability affect the volume of claims?" 

"Does the treatment of COVID-19 claims signal a change in the future for how communicable diseases are covered in workers’ compensation?" 

Is workers' compensation designed for, or adaptable to, the challenge that is an unseen and presently unpredictable pandemic? If not, is there a need for foundational and societal reaction to socialize the costs associated with such an onset (outside of the truckloads of dollars already borrowed by the federal government and distributed as "stimulus")? Is there a valid path to involve the expertise and efficiency of a century of workers' compensation in the complexities that COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 presents? 

If workers' compensation is be bear responsibility, how will that be measured? How will the price for that risk be collected and then distributed? Is it fair or legal for employers to shoulder the full cost of this pandemic, having never collected that cost in either product cost or insurance premium? Will the effects further illustrate the distinctions and differences of the more than 55 different individual programs (remember that Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia have workers' compensation, in addition to the federal programs and the 50 states)? 

Furthermore, if workers' compensation is to pay for costs associated with the threat or the presence of such disease, will it do so protecting all workers equally? Or, will there be disparate treatment for some, such as "first responders" to the dismay and disappointment of others? Will laws include "presumptions" for the benefit of certain occupations, leaving other occupations wanting? If there are to be presumptions or exceptions, will they be founded on perceptions, science, or expediency? And, if there is to be compensability of COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 or similar, will the definitions and decisions be based legislatively, judicially, or regulatorily? 

There are a great many discussions to be had. Join us for some key points on Thursday, May 14 at 2 p.m. ET. Read more and register at WCRInet.org.

Masks Illegal? Not Generally

Did you know that in Florida it is a criminal offense to wear "a mask or hood" in a variety of settings? Don't panic, read on. It is really not a problem for most. The prohibitions include "on a public way," section 876.12, Fla. Stat. ("lane, walk, alley, street, road, highway, or other public way")(but only if you are over 16 years old), "on public property," section 876.13, Fla. Stat, and "on the property of another," section 876.14, Fla. Stat. (but again only if you are over 16 years old).

Masks became of interest to us all when the Centers for Disease Control recently recommended that Americans begin wearing face masks amid COVID-19: "CDC recommends wearing cloth face coverings in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain." 

The first quarter of 2020 brought the COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 virus to our collective consciousness. Some perceived it as a threat earlier than others. Some reactions have been more stringent than others. But for the first three months of the year, the advice was reasonably consistent as regards face masks - no need unless you are ill. Some have been critical of those who denied the need for masks in the general public. The widely-held contention among the scientists was that wearing a mask (other than a high-quality N95) would not provide significant protection from the virus. There are still those who maintain this contention. 

Be that as it may, we are now encouraged, one and all, to wear fabric face masks when we leave the home. People are making them in their spare time. Admittedly, I have made a few myself (mine cover the nose and mouth, but are not easy on the eyes). I had a medical-professional acquaintance this week greet me with "Where is your mask?" Then, followed up by volunteering "I feel naked without mine now." People are indeed getting used to masks, though I persistently forget mine. A recent news story suggests that wearing masks in your personal automobile is not necessary and could be dangerous. 

Thus, we find ourselves amid a "century" threat. None of us will likely live to see such a threat twice in our lives (hopefully). I recall when someone told me similarly after Hurricane Ivan, that it was my "century storm" and I would not see another (then Dennis hit the next summer and then Katrina, etc. You get the picture). There is some chance our "century" pandemic may not be our last experience.

Returning to masks then. In Nicol v. State, 939 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006), the issue of mask-wearing became an issue. There, some individuals were arrested wearing bandannas (a bandanna is one of the options specifically mentioned by the CDC). One of the defendants was convicted of conspiracy, and an appeal followed. The presence of bandannas was an issue as it had been mentioned in the probable cause for the arrest, and thus became a topic in the appeal. 

The court noted that "Men wearing masks at 5 a.m. in the morning, acting furtively and watching a 7–7-Eleven store would appear to furnish probable cause." The Court noted that wearing a mask is a misdemeanor in Florida, citing sections 876.12, 876.13, and 876.14. It noted that all of these mask and hood prohibitions date to the 1950s and "were apparently aimed at the Ku Klux Klan." 

Notably, however, the Nicol Court reminded that "the Florida Supreme Court found one of these statutes unconstitutional (public property - section 876.13). Robinson v. State, 393 So. 2d 1076 (Fla.1980). That rationale was based on the statute being overbroad. The Supreme Court held "It is susceptible of being applied to create prohibitions that completely lack any rational basis."

The Supreme Court's analysis of section 876.13 in Robinson is consistent with classic overbreadth analysis under our Constitution. Overbreadth is a problem in our system of due process when some generalized prohibition impairs both appropriate and inappropriate behavior, without providing distinction, explanation, or exception. It has been said of overbreadth that "it paints with too broad a brush." Its simplicity is an arbitrariness that we find offensive to due process. There is an expectation that laws will prohibit detriment with minimal imposition on broad individual rights. 

According to the Court in Nicol, the Supreme Court decision in Robinson led the Florida Legislature to pass section 876.155, Florida Statutes. The Court noted this section "limits the application of these statutes." The District Court also concluded in Nicol that the 1981 efforts in section 876.155 are directed at "cure(ing) these problems" with "limits (to) the application of these statutes."

Section 876.155 explains that these mask prohibitions only apply in instances where bad intent accompanies the wearing. An "intent to deprive any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws," or an "intent, by force or threat of force, to injure, intimidate, or interfere with any person," or "intent to intimidate, threaten, abuse, or harass any other person." 

Thus, when you venture out onto Florida's "lane(s), walk(s), alley(s), street(s), road(s), highway(s), or other public way(s)," you are likely fine to wear your face mask and protect yourself to the extent possible from this viral threat. However, there remains the potential that in some settings ("5 a.m., acting furtively and watching a 7-Eleven store"; driving in your personal automobile) it may be best to forego the mask. Or, perhaps just forego the surveillance of the convenience store and go back home and get some rest?

Value, Price, and Decisions

There is an economic rule called the Utility Maximization Model. It is founded on some assumptions about our economic interactions, including that we all have less resources than we might need (there are some notable exceptions such as Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet and more, but all of us in a general sense). Because our resources are limited, products and services will compete for the attention of our dollars. Of course, we have all learned in a COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 environment that sometimes the market can also ignore us a bit in certain instances.

I was reminded of that when an advertisement struck me one morning recently during my walk. I listen to a music application on my phone as I walk, and have learned to mostly tune out the advertisements. But, an ad for a very well-known bath tissue company caught my attention. It was bragging about its perceived competitive advantages over other tissues and the resulting professed value this brand offered the consumer. I laughed out loud at the ad because, at that time, the store shelves were persistently bare of any brand, type, or description of bath tissue. I am sure that they had purchased that ad spot many months before, but the irony was palpable.

The ad illustrates how marketers strive to appeal to our drive for utility maximization. They describe to us how their service or product will be of value to us, and/or will appeal to our values. We all want our needs met by a purchase. Additionally, though, we may be willing to have a somewhat less comfortable bath tissue if we believe some brand is more socially responsible, environmentally friendly, or otherwise consistent with our personal belief systems. That we perceive emotional, as well as utilitarian, appeals to products is nothing new. 

One very small study (420 surveyed) led Clutch.com to conclude that customers and potential customers find companies' social issue stance important. Significant majorities in that survey supported that those "corporate social responsibility" or "CSR" positions affected their decisions. Some contend that such CSR is gaining influence over purchasing decisions; others contend that these perceptions matter "more than price." Thus, there is a resurgence of the idea that emotional engagement with a merchant may lead to commercial interaction. 

There is also evidence to support that CSR must be sincere in order to be effective with consumers. Sciencedirect.com contends that "CSR activities improve a company's image when consumers attribute sincere motives." Thus, if consumers conclude that CSR is not genuinely about values or company culture, but about attracting sales, then the results are not as positive. The purchaser's accepted price point can be higher if there is the belief that the CSR is genuine as opposed to window dressing. 

Over the decades, we have periodically been encouraged to "Buy American." The Business Insider says that "historically these initiatives have worked." That author believes our initial instance of this was in colonial times when our forebears eschewed British goods in favor of domestically produced alternatives. When we evolved into a conflict with the British, the argument is that Americans "realized pretty quickly the dependence we had on" both the British and their goods. Thus, purportedly, began the "buy American" tradition. 

Thus, there was and remains a drive for domestic production and competition. Some do not perceive buying American as positive. One writer in the Washington Post asserts that "Buy American" is historically racist. She claims that this is true "especially against Asians and Asian Americans." There is the potential for CSR not attributable only to a company of origin, but even a country of origin. Should we buy products from a country whose social responsibility does not align with our own? It is possible that some consumers may ask whether some "made in" country is aligned with their values when making a utility maximization decision purchase. Is doing so "racist" or merely an extension of the value-driven analysis of CSR? 

In recent weeks, we have heard reports of interruption in the flow to America of manufactured goods. According to CNN, supplies of face masks slowed in March 2020. American distributors noted that Chinese manufacturers had not "shipped any new stock in two months." They were, perhaps, favoring delivery to their domestic customers? This might be about the Chinese pandemic writ large. It might also be a comparative advantage issue regarding price (if you can sell your inventory for a similar price outside your factory door, without shipping expense, is it rational to ship products thousands of miles for the same or even similar pricing?). Companies often tend to be about return on investment, numbers-driven, and less focused on the big pictures. 

The draw of foreign manufacturing may be various perceptions. Some see the trend to "offshore" jobs as belonging to the 1980s. The Harvard Business Review provided an overview of instances in which American companies made "direct investment(s)" in foreign markets that decade, seeking lower wage rates and thus lower product costs. That analysis recites as justification the desire to compete here with products produced by foreign companies on foreign soil, the "imports." It notes that some perceived then that the offshoring of jobs for the production of components or a complete process was "the only way to compete with inexpensive, high-quality imports." 

According to Voice of America (VOA), China was producing about half of the world's mask volume prior to the COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 virus spreading around the globe. There have been allegations that while China and the World Health Organization (WHO) minimized COVID's effect and threat early in the virus' development, that China also bought existing mask inventories that were shipped back to China from places like the United States. The Daily Mail contends that billions of masks were obtained by China in the early days of this virus. 

In September 2019, before the news of COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2 reached U.S. shores, NBC News reported that the offshoring of some manufacturing was seen as a "worrying" by "American national security officials." The article claims that "the vast majority of key ingredients for drugs that many Americans rely on are manufactured abroad, mostly in China." The implication was that American's access to necessary and safe medication could be subject to tampering and medication could even be "weaponize(d)." Current claims regarding what percentage of American medication is dependent upon China or other foreign manufacturers have been the subject of some debate, as argued by Reason.com. 

When manufacturing is local, access to goods is enhanced. When manufacturing is local, it is likely that the cost of labor involved in production is also enhanced. That may change with the advent of robotics and artificial intelligence. Those implications are discussed in Tech is Changing Work. It is possible that the technology influence alone will encourage on-shoring of production. The implications of that on foreign labor markets may be immense. And, there is the potential that there will be less than a one-to-one ratio between offshore jobs lost and onshore jobs gained, secondary to the onshore implementation of technology encouraged by the onshore labor cost differential. 

In the coming days, Americans will return to work in large numbers and the economy will return to growth. There will undoubtedly be lingering effects of the COVID-19/Wuhan/SARS-CoV-2. There are likely to be tendencies to forego the purchase of non-necessities. Consumer confidence is likely to be bruised as individuals and families restock and re-save. But, consumers will return to the market and make purchases. A primary question will be whether they will do so with an eye toward something bigger than their individual utility maximization. Will perceptions of responsibility influence those decisions regarding nationality in the way they have been demonstrated in corporate culture? 

It is possible that the mask shortage example will have illustrated to Americans that there is value in having manufacturing facilities in America. Perhaps when they see two products on a shelf, one "made in China" and the other "Made in America," they will select the second despite a notably higher price. There may be recognition that the responsible thing to do is to support those American-based manufacturing efforts and the jobs that they support. Perhaps the larger issue of supporting manufacturing here, and the greater economic good of that support, will appeal to purchasers? 

It is possible that such focus may come from patriotism. It is perhaps more likely to come as regards perceptions of critical manufacturing such as the face masks or the pharmaceuticals. In the end, there is stability, predictability, and security in having a strong domestic manufacturing base. That comes at a price but is of value nonetheless. This is not in any way "against" China or the Chinese people. This is a recognition that domestic production has an intrinsic value that benefits our society and people. 

It is possible that in the short term, Americans will buy American in a broad context, whether by patriotism or feelings of responsibility. It will be interesting, however, to see how long such a trend might continue as the memory of mask shortages and shipping delays fades from prominence into our collective ambivalence. Will we (can we) maintain a focus on the national social responsibility and the values our purchases support (or not)? Or, will we convince ourselves that support for our national well-being is somehow racist or otherwise inappropriate? 

Interesting times lie ahead as we exit quarantine and lockdown. There will be much studied in this pandemic, both in science and beyond. How economic reality changes will be a significant curiosity over years to come.

Science, Standards, and Government

But now we’ve all heard social determinants of health. How are they implicated in the delivery of medical care? How are medical care delivery questions answered, by what standards, on what information?

A growing trend in recent years in the Worker’s Compensation market has been a retrospective self-evaluation on the manner in which decisions are made regarding the presence or treatment of comorbidities and pre-existing conditions. Those may result from prior injuries or from our personal medical status, body habitus, genetics, diet, and more. Though there remains room for discussion, there is evidence that our lifestyle, diet, and more can influence our health. And, there is evidence that those who are well tend overall to respond and recover better to injury or illness than those who are already ill.

The potential exists, armed with this statistical information, that some may strive not to hire those whose personal health portends risk of complication in the event of an injury. Certainly, one would hope that hiring decisions would not be made on such a basis, the potential exists. Could social determinants of health evolve into Social Determinants of Employability? Fear of potential for negative employer engagement of our health or health propensities led in 2009 to the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act. Whether it would come to pass, there is some fear of it. Might discrimination occur elsewhere based on our health? 

Among the subjects upon which the news periodically espouses, there is periodically "indisputable science." Despite the word "indisputable," this is sometimes generally accepted and other times ridiculed. The fact is that "indisputable" is an editorial label. And, science is subject to the limitations we all have in regards to understanding it. In a more general sense, science is a subject that is seemingly persistently in dispute and disagreement, and thus rarely indisputable. 

No matter how smart the individuals, or how much consensus for a conclusion, science is not always right. The chances for science to be incorrect are likely greater when the challenges are new, the data is incomplete, and the demand for answers is acute. There is also a potential for "groupthink" to influence conclusions. The answer to "groupthink," according to Neuroleaderhsip.com is science. But if the "groupthink" is about science, then . . . well that is a conundrum. 

The subject of social determinants raises its head once again in the midst of the COVID-19 international pandemic. A study conducted in America‘s COVID/Wuhan epicenter, New York, concluded that a significant volume (90%) of individuals hospitalized because of this virus suffered pre-existing conditions. Data is supporting this in both the general population and the young. Remember, early reports from "experts" mistakenly assured us that the disease is not a threat to the young. We were also assured early on that there was no threat of human-to-human transmission of this disease. Authority no less than the World Health Organization made such assurances. Suffice it to say there have been a few examples of science and experts reaching mistaken COVIDclusions. 

The statistics in hand now, through the addition of volumes of information acquired at great human cost, are suggesting that pre-and coexisting morbidities can affect the body's reaction to this viral attack. I use "supporting" because there is undoubtedly more data yet to come; this ailment, our response, and the science that will affect it will be studied for years to come. As the British Broadcasting Corporation noted, "History will judge which countries got it right." Similarly, retrospect will judge which experts did as well. There is a discussion of what is causing deaths; issues include pneumonia, respiratory failure, and more. How deaths are categorized is attracting scientific attention as well. 

Despite the involvement of these other conditions, there is a perception of a tendency in America to default to labeling deaths as COVID-related if there is a positive test, as reported by WUSA9 in Washington D.C. There are also some who believe that COVID death in the U.S. is being under-reported, according to CNN. This is despite Centers for Disease Control ("CDC") advice in March "that COVID-19 should be reported on the death certificate for all decedents where the disease caused or is assumed to have caused or contributed to death." Science is thus encouraging the use of assumption. 

Belgium has been in the news because the COVID-19 death statistics there "include not only deaths that are confirmed to be virus-related but even those suspected of being linked, whether the victim was tested or not" (emphasis added) according to National Public Radio. This is reminiscent perhaps of the debate that has raged regarding how to determine deaths from a hurricane. How direct must the causation be? 

Time, study, and reflection will bring reflective conclusions as to actual COVID-19 infection rates and death statistics. The point is that science, which depends on facts, definitions, and experimentation is scrambling at this time for all three. Despite that, the experts continue to hold forth on the nightly news and express their expert scientific conclusions. As Sherlock Holmes once famously noted "It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence. It biases the judgment.” Some feel we are far from having all the evidence regarding COVID-19, and perhaps some other human ailments. 

The critical point with the comorbidities may be a bodily reaction. There is no evidence that this virus is somehow sentient or intelligent. It does not choose which organisms to enter, or which cells to attack. This discussion is solely about the human body's reaction to the attack. It is notable that some studies have concluded large volumes of Americans have developed COVID-19 antibodies without symptoms or complaints. In short, some bodies are able to resist this attack. I find myself wondering if I have already had COVID-19/Wuhan, while I simultaneously worry that I may get COVID-19. Switching between these worries is just something else to provide mental exercise in this trying time. 

There is a suggestion therefore that the infection rate may exceed the number of diagnosed cases by several orders of magnitude. A California study concluded that symptom–free individuals with the antibodies present may number between 50 and 85 times the number of diagnosed cases. The New York Times recently reported on an antibody test there that supports perhaps as many as 20% of New Yorkers (millions) having already had COVID/Wuhan. These projections, if borne out in future research, suggest a much higher infection rate than previously suspected. 

The known hospitalization and death rates (subject to the discussion above of accurate determination of the cause of death) are compared to the infection rate. As the overall infection rate increases, the comparative rate of hospitalization decreases. These infection rate numbers, which will be learned only through extensive testing for the presence of antibodies in the general population, are a critical consideration in various analyses regarding the pandemic, our response, and recovery. According to CBSN New York, the Governor there now says that antibody testing "is critical" in this regard to the efforts to reopen in New York. However, the World Health Organization suggests that the data is not yet sufficient to conclude that suffering this viral attack will render a victim thereafter immune from future relapse or infection. 

Recently, a group of doctors made the national news complaining about the lack of governmental "advance" guidance on their decision-making. The essence of the article is that the government is not providing criteria or decision matrices regarding the administration of treatment for COVID/Wuhan. There have been similar discussions in the Wall Street Journal, Politico, and Pew. They question why the government is not intervening to define their decisions. 

The expressed fear or anxiety is that doctors will be forced at some point to make life-or-death decisions regarding which COVID-19 patients receive care, and which are left to their own devices. Some doctors lament and criticize being put in that position by increasing volumes of patients and limited resources. They seemingly long for government intervention, guidelines, and criteria, by which they could make decisions and not face untoward outcomes. Some, in the press, discuss how such guidelines have been previously postulated and considered, but lament that the government has not enacted them. 

In comparison, the New York Post recently reported that New York adopted guidelines for emergency medical personnel. They reportedly "directed emergency service workers not to attempt to revive anyone without a pulse." This is a resource allocation decision, perhaps similar to what the doctors seek regarding COVID. Essentially, if some New Yorker lacks a pulse then save your time, effort, and supplies. After about 6 days, and very little media coverage, the "controversial guidelines" were rescinded because "they don’t reflect New York’s standards." If they do not, one might wonder how they were ever published in the first instance. Remember Rhianna in Take a Bow? ("When I know you're only sorry you got caught").

It is possible they, in fact, mirror the standards, but don't stand up to scrutiny? The failed experiment for emergency technician guidelines reflects the potential that public opinion might influence government action. They are an example of the government setting policy for care providers. In one instance, above, medicine seems to seek guidelines, but in this example, there is a lack of public support for such guidelines. Is it possible that with or without published guidelines that uncomfortable decision-making may be periodically required in some instances? 

There are generalized fears that medical providers will be increasingly forced to make resource allocation decisions. The Atlantic recently described issues of resource shortage. In the end, there may be instances in which there are not enough beds in intensive care, respirators, medications, or time/attention from care providers. Resources may be finite. Who will make those allocation decisions and how? Coincidentally, in March, the Daily News reported on a patient under Corona care, who was also battling cancer. He reportedly made the hard call himself, telling doctors to stop treating his COVID/Wuhan and “Save someone else.” Would I, could I, be so magnanimous? Should it be the patient who decides, the doctor (scientist), or the government (groupthink)? 

Left without a patient ready or willing to make such a call, without government guidelines or matrices, the physician must. Should those decision-makers be "risk averse" or "risk tolerant?" There is discussion of risk to the medical providers, risk to the patients, and risk to the capacity of the medical care process. At best, this is a difficult, emotional, and distressing process. 

The recognition is seemingly that people will suffer, and some will die. A portion of the untoward outcomes may be traceable in the decision tree back to some point in time in which a physician decides to intubate or not, administer medication or not, place the patient on her side or not, and similar. At least for now, those decisions are made based on scientific and medical training, experience, and belief. Such individual decisions may be later subject to second-guessing or Monday-morning-quarterbacking by lawyers, judges, and juries. Some decisions may be wrong, for a variety of reasons, and without even a modicum of bad intention or negligence. 

Thus, doctors who make mistakes, even in the best of faith and worst of conditions, may find themselves questioned. Their decision processes, criteria, assumptions, and conclusions may all find scrutiny. Some published, scholarly, government guidelines might affect that retrospection, or might not. In the end, the very best doctor may be questioned for the very best decisions because an outcome disappoints. There are legislative and executive decisions already concerning shielding care providers from liability in the COVID setting, but questions remain. 

In all honesty, I am no scientist. However, as notably, a great many non-scientists are already opining on the Coronavirus situation. In addition, a great many scientists are espousing conclusions and conjectures regarding the virus on a daily basis in the news media. They have been for weeks. Their opinions have at times differed from each other, periodically changed, or been substantiated, or been wrong. The results and reporting have led some to determine that a fair few of these experts and scientists perhaps lack credibility, despite significant medical and scientific training and experience. Thus, though I am no scientist, perhaps I can ask some pertinent questions? 

We as an American society are prone to value human life. We rise incredibly, and persistently, in response to human suffering, and have as long as I can remember. A recent news interview regarding China and its response to the Wuhan/COVID noted "The difference between collectivism and common good is a huge disconnect with the U.S. because we regard . . . human life [as] sacred." That commentator seemingly suggested that the rights, freedoms, and intellect in our society are geared to personal liberty in a way that collective societies perhaps do not understand. 

In a way, the medical guidelines debate hearkens back to the Obamacare debates. There was discussion then about a single-payer system in which the government covers all medical expenses and makes all decisions regarding the administration of health resources. In the face of COVID, we have heard similar calls for socialization, free medical testing, treatment, and replacement wages for all who are ill or who must quarantine. 

There was Obamacare debate regarding the efficacy and morality of government making decisions regarding who merits treatment and who is left to their own devices. A great many libertarian and free Americans then lamented the potentiality of Independent Payment Advisory Boards ("death panels") and argued against their facilitation or implementation. Those controversial Obamacare provisions were eventually removed from that bill (similarly to the withdrawal of New York's recent "do not resuscitate" order?). The imprint of that Obamacare discussion on socializing medical care will remain in some minds indefinitely, however. To some, the Boards were the defining element of that legislative proposal's spirit and intent, control. 

If we cede to the government the authority to make decisions regarding who is treated and who is not, what freedom have we lost? Is the long-term effect the same as the short? If the government would make those decisions, would pre-existing comorbidities become a part, as the scientific evidence perhaps portends, or would those be ignored? Could physicians be "guided" to not treat those with diabetes in the same manner that New York strove to guide paramedics not to treat (revive) those who lack a pulse? Would our public opinion and ire rise in response to such a guideline, or would we acquiesce? 

Some would suggest that the decision tree (process) remains the same without the government. They would say that health insurers, hospital committees, and doctors already make such difficult analyses in the rationing of various care and treatments. They might argue that the "who" of such decisions is a red herring and urge instead a frank and open discussion of the "what," that these decisions are likely inevitable. Those perspectives likely deserve discussion as well, as do the perspectives that perhaps our medical science is not yet omniscient or omnipotent. 

Like characters in a classic dystopian novel, will Americans find themselves eschewing the cookie in favor of the carrot stick? Will obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, and more become excuses to exclude us from increasingly rationed care and treatment? If not in the day-to-day, perhaps only in the pandemic? Consciously or not, will our focus on personal health increase? Would our focus on our own health and fitness change if we knew that our ability to obtain medical care might one day depend upon our weight, body mass index, blood pressure, or other pre-morbidity? As a free society, do we want it to?

The National Town Hall

On Thursday, April 23, 2020, there will be a broadcast of a National Town Hall meeting recorded the day before. We have all, by this time, been in attendance on a video conference through the Internet. However, this particular Zoom meeting included about 80 participants. It was the largest in which I have been involved, and any meeting with that many participants is a challenge. Bob Wilson (WorkersCompensation.com) and Mark Walls (Safety National) co-moderated this expansive group. 

The foundational idea seems to be akin to the print efforts regarding state reaction to COVID-19. WorkersCompensation.com has a map-driven webpage with state-specific updates on what is different and/or implicated in these challenging times. WorkCompCentral (subscription) has a page in which various COVID-related news stories are aggregated for convenience. Everyone in workers' compensation has come to the realization that keeping up with the landscape these days can be a full-time endeavor. Thus, an intriguing idea to gather both industry and regulatory together for a 90-minute discussion of what is challenging and the various reactions. 

The conversation included at least Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico,  Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. The variety of perspectives was not surprising. The economic impacts, personal and systemic, permeated the topic. 

There are some jurisdictions moving to require workers' compensation insurers to refund premiums based on the fact that employers' activities are currently reduced. Other states are encouraging both investigation and consideration of premium reduction. This is not an issue only for workers' compensation. The national news has reported that auto insurers have been voluntarily reducing premiums and refunding payments. The explanation from The Motley Fool helps us understand that auto premium is calculated on risk (miles driven or hours worked) and as those decrease the risk of resulting harm similarly decreases.

There was concern expressed about the perceived potential for states to have expectations for COVID compensability. There are states that have made such disease claims compensable for some by legislative intervention, and others by executive fiat. Some perceive these efforts to be contrary to (supplemental to) the law as it existed before COVID. There were concerns expressed regarding the risks for which the insurance industry contracted, or did not, and the premiums it collected, or did not. Some express worry that those carriers are now unexpectedly subjected in some jurisdictions to risks for which no premium was collected. That, others mention, may be exacerbated by state mandates for the return of workers' compensation premiums to employers. There may be distinctions between free-market and monopolistic states in this regard. 

Operationally, COVID has affected the operations of various state regulatory agencies. There are states that have closed their workers' compensation offices to the public in a prophylactic manner. Others have closed facilities in a more reactionary fashion following some specific exposure or risk. One state closed because of a particular potential exposure, engaged in "deep cleaning" and then reopened after days. Other states, like Florida, have operated the workers' compensation adjudication system in a largely consistent manner throughout; we are blessed with a long history of electronic filing, remote hearings, and technology reliance. The actions and reactions have had widely diverse impacts and implications.

What is clear from the growing body of investigation into COVID? Perhaps not a great deal. Every news outlet has its own expert, and each has opinions. Those change seemingly daily. The most reliable answer seems to be that no one, scientist or soothsayer, really knows how bad this virus will affect us, what will stop or cure it, or when it will end. 

It is probable that many people have been exposed to this virus; whether and how they have brought that to the workplace may affect a business' operations going forward. Should contracting a virus one can be exposed to anywhere be a workers' compensation exposure? There are those who fear systemic integration of virus (this one specifically, or virus generally) into workers' compensation risk, while others feel legislative reaction may be far less probable as days pass. The challenges with COVID include not only the classic workers' compensation (medical care and indemnity following an injury), but discussion of employer responsibility for quarantine.  

COVID has brought a unique medical challenge to society. The virus exists in some people who exhibit no symptoms and who therefore have no reason to suspect they carry it. Those people innocently walk among society, each a potential Typhoid Mary. The result has been the recommendation for quarantine for those who may have such exposure (though any of us may have been unknowingly exposed, perhaps repeatedly). This has seen a fair number of well people self-isolating. And, the resulting question: who should support people who are therefore unable to work? For the first time, there is inquiry as to why such precautionary isolation is not workers' compensation.

Sick employees are nothing new or novel. And, the perception is that many workers do not have, or do not have sufficient, paid sick leave. There are those whose sentiment is that the government should mandate paid sick leave. They see the risk of sick employees as a greater cost than the business' expenditure for sick leave. The cost-management is a potential issue though. The employer may save money by not providing sick leave, but the customers or coworkers who are thus exposed to a sick employee may pay the actual cost.

There is a seemingly persistent modern sentiment that whatever occurs in life, someone should pay for it. For some reason, few ever conclude that this "someone" should be the individual. Should we be saving our money individually against the potential for economic downturn, illness, or even disaster? Increasingly, there are calls for socialism to step forward, for costs of misfortune or misconduct to be borne by society rather than the individual. The calls for employer compensation for quarantine are perhaps similar to this more generalized trend away from personal responsibility. 

Within that vein, there is a discussion of workers' compensation presumptions. Various states have created presumptions that anyone in a particular occupation who is diagnosed with COVID is entitled to workers' compensation. There was mention in the Town Hall of these decisions being "policy choices." Various perceptions were voiced regarding who should be entitled to such a presumption. There were several jurisdictions that mentioned police, firefighters, and medical technicians. 

Curiously, one state provides a presumption for any police officer, but not for just any medical professional. The medical professionals there are entitled to this presumption only if they prove that they actually worked with someone who had the virus. Thus, a police officer there is entitled to the presumption merely because of her/his occupation. A medical doctor is entitled to the presumption only upon proof of interaction with an infected individual. I am not aware of any scientific foundations to support that police officers are more likely to contract any particular virus than a medical doctor. A recurrent question of equal protection of the laws permeates any discussion of occupation-based presumptions. 

That does not mean such a foundation does not exist. It is possible that science can demonstrate the logic of making distinctions between occupations and even legal foundations (what law). Some argument can perhaps be made that without the protection of such a presumption that police forces might be understaffed. But, such an argument might as readily be made about grocery store stock employees, pharmacists, cooks, and a multitude of other professions upon which we all rely daily. In the face of a virus that can apparently be contracted by anyone anywhere anytime, is any occupation more worthy of a presumption than another? Does life without police or firefighters present more challenges than life without food on the grocery shelves? 

If there is to be a presumption of occupational exposure, should there be one of tort exposure (what law)? If someone contracts COVID-19 should our law presume they must have contracted it from wherever they can prove they have been? Shall we all be afforded this route to recoup damages from the store, restaurant, or other facility to which we have visited? If we have COVID, we must have caught it there? Is that different from if we have COVID, we must have caught it on the job? If I visit my neighbor during this lockdown and become ill, should that be the responsibility of my neighbor or her/his homeowner's insurance? If my neighbor gives me a lift to the post office and I become ill, should that be the responsibility of her/his auto insurance? 

And, thus, the return to the Town Hall conclusion that these are policy choices. Recognizing that the role of the regulator is to effectuate legislative mandates, one regulator suggested that in the time of COVID questions of imperative and effect may come from those legislative bodies or members. The role of regulators, either proactive or reactive, was discussed in this context. Whether the COVID crisis is a time for wholesale changes in workers' compensation is worthy of contemplation and discussion. Some in the Town Hall expressed belief that existing laws on occupational disease are sufficient and effective in determining COVID compensability, and that adjustment is not necessary. 

In all, the gathering was interesting for those whose lives orbit the workers' compensation solar system. There are undoubtedly extensive personal and professional concerns about this virus. Anxiety and fear are palpable in various communities, professions, and situations. There are too many unknowns. Science struggles to react, industry struggles to react, workers' compensation struggles to react, and ordinary people struggle to react. Hopefully, science can bring us predictability, consensus, and relief soon. 

Ultimately, the most important victim of COVID is likely to be the economy. That seems a callous perception to some, who would remind us that it is the individual, the person, that is most important and about whom we should be concerned. But, individual responsibility is increasingly minimized, and socialized responses are instead seemingly favored. Those socialized solutions travel on the income stream that is commerce. Whether the flow is from taxes or insurance premiums, commerce creates the funding from which social safety nets subsist. If there is no commerce, there is no economic exchange, no taxes, no premiums, and no stream. No commerce, no livelihood. 

The COVID-19 implications are large and small. Some will touch us individually, others will touch us only tangentially. But in the end, COVID will touch every one of us. It is encouraging to see the workers' compensation world strive to both better understand and to support each other. Tune in on Thursday to hear the perspectives and questions. It is a worthy investment of your time. 

Click here to watch the replay.