Last week the workers' compensation industry was rocked by a double blast of bad news, one in the form of an OSHA report on the failings of our industry, and the other from a combined effort of NPR and Investigative Journalism site ProPublica. The ProPublica article, which took a very dim view of the industry, has prompted me to cover something that has been on my mind the last 6 months or so, but I've never taken the opportunity to write about.
It is about politics, balance and unchecked actions, and it largely stems from two incidents I've covered previously in this blog; the career experiences of former North Dakota WSI Director Sandy Blunt and former Oregon insurer SAIF CEO John Plotkin.
As many of you know, I am a conservative person, a right wing radical, particularly when it comes to fiscal issues and government responsibilities. Like Condoleezza Rice, I can say I represent the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. As such, I have a healthy dose of mistrust towards the intent of much of what I consider to be main stream media. I would not generally rely on a site like ProPublica, believing it to be an activist organization full of left wing weenies. That is the way conservatives view things, after all.
Now before those of you with more “progressive” tendencies go all ape-crap-crazy over my use of the phrase “left wing weenies”, understand this central point: We need left wing weenies in our Universe. We need them in this industry. Heck, Joe Paduda and Peter Rousmaniere ARE left wing weenies, and I adore both of those guys. I just wish I could get Paduda to stop pinching my ass at conferences.
Dave Depaolo on the other hand is more centrist, so he's just a weenie. Who owns an airplane.
At any rate, having people on the left as well as the right serves a purpose. It can provide a balance that, otherwise absent, can lead to nefarious actions and misdeeds. Take the aforementioned CEO's of two of the nations “State Funds”.
Sandy Blunt was the Director of Workforce Safety and Insurance for several years, until he was investigated, prosecuted and in December 2008 convicted of the felonious (and egregious) charge of “Misspending Government Funds”. The funds he was accused of squandering? About $11,000 of it was spent by his agency over 4 years on flowers, trinkets, balloons, decorations and beverages for WSI employee meetings, and on gift certificates and cards for restaurants, stores and movie theaters that were used as worker incentives. The remainder of the funds, around $15,000, was tied to moving expenses and sick pay for one executive. That executive had resigned under pressure, and prosecutors felt Blunt should have collected those funds back from the employee, despite an internal agency memo stating they had no position to do so. No one ever accused Blunt of taking a dime or benefitting from these expenditures in any way. Virtually everyone in the nation, except 16 dunderheads in North Dakota could recognize he got screwed.
The tale of John Plotkin is probably much more familiar to you, having just occurred and having been extensively covered here last year. Plotkin was terminated after just 3 months over what was shown to be, at best, a sloppy and irresponsible investigation into his language and behavior. At worst, it was an orchestrated coup by entrenched executives who felt threatened by his style and objectives. It was ultimately shown that Plotkin, terminated for using “Salty language” (seriously, I am not making that up), was canned without a single complaint ever being filed against him.
So, what do these two gentlemen have in common? At least to some degree, they were both victims of state systems that are completely lopsided on a political level. North Dakota is a red state. Redder than red. It is so red, blue is almost illegal. Oregon, by contrast, could not be any bluer. It is the bluest of the blue. It is so blue that a Republican driving through from Idaho can temporarily double the states conservative base. Both men were persecuted by state agencies in states with singular political control, where effective opposition is virtually absent.
I contend that it is the absence of effective opposition that leads to corruption and deceit – not just within workers' compensation, but often across the board.
I've only met John Plotkin once, and he struck me as an extraordinarily intelligent and thoughtful person. The following observations are my own, and not intended to portray his words or thoughts. I get the impression that politically he could be described as a blue state guy. I know from a passing comment that Dick Cheney is not his favorite person (Note to self: If Plotkin visits, hide “Cheney for President” bumper sticker). I don't know why some moderates and most liberals have such a problem with Dick Cheney. I once told Joe Paduda, just after Cheney's heart transplant, that “Dick Cheney was my guy”, and I had hopes for a strong political comeback for him. It was the only time I've ever seen Paduda's mouth open with nothing coming out.
Now, where was I?
Oh yes, Plotkin. Blue state. Sorry.
I got the impression that John was surprised that what happened to him could occur in a blue, progressive state. I, on the other hand, was not surprised, as “absolute power” will indeed “corrupt absolutely”. The lesson here is that neither side of the political aisle has a monopoly on truth and integrity, just as neither is above dishonesty, greed and avarice. No one has an automatic license to the moral high ground simply by the nature of their unopposed beliefs. It is the presence of balance via effective opposition that will keep a political machine on the straight and narrow.
Interestingly, it was the more left oriented among our industry who initially lambasted the ProPublica report. They indicated disappointment in what they see as an intense bias from the reporters, as well as a clearly pre-conceived notion as to what those reporters wanted to find. They expressed disappointment in a publication they thought should be more neutral, while many of the rest of us did not thoroughly recognize the extreme bias until it was pointed out to us.
We certainly recognized that they found and focused on the worst possible elements in comp. We recognized the authors think employer directed care is automatically poor, despite the fact employers have the ability to know and use skilled occupational medicine providers. But an apparent agenda was not as obvious to many of us as it was our friends on the left. It was an interesting anomaly in the realm where political leanings exist.
The authors of the ProPublica article (series actually) may have a bias, an end game, an ideal solution in mind. Still, we should not discount the message they convey. One horrendous story in workers’ comp is too many, and absent effective opposition, we risk complacency and all the ills that befall it.
We may not like those right wing radicals or left wing weenies, but by God, we need them to stick around and tell us what they think. Our honor and integrity depends on it.