Deemed diseases in Australia Tim Driscoll School of Public Health - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Deemed diseases in Australia Tim Driscoll School of Public Health University of Sydney Outline Background to Deemed Diseases Key aspects Overview of methods and list structure Consideration of some important issues
School of Public Health University of Sydney
› Background to Deemed Diseases › Key aspects › Overview of methods and list structure › Consideration of some important issues › Overview of list content › Questions / comments
2
› A list of disorders (and their exposures) that are deemed to be work- related. › The system aims to simplify relevant claims.
3
› If the worker has a listed disorder, AND › They have had the relevant exposure at work, THEN › The disorder is assumed to have developed BECAUSE of the exposure › UNLESS there is strong evidence to the contrary.
4
› Worker develops a disorder › Worker thinks it might be related to work › Worker makes a claim › WORKER MUST ESTABLISH that there is a causal connection between a particular work exposure and the disease › Worker must establish that they were exposed.
5
› Worker develops a disorder › Worker thinks it might be related to work › Worker makes a claim › IT IS ACCEPTED that there is a causal connection between a particular work exposure and the disease › Worker must establish that they were exposed.
6
› Normal approach: › - WORKER MUST ESTABLISH that there is a causal connection between a particular work exposure and the disease. › Deemed diseases approach: › - IT IS ACCEPTED that there is a causal connection between a particular work exposure and the disease. › That is, the onus of proof is reversed. › BUT, the worker still has to prove they were exposed.
7
› The onus of proof is reversed.
› Disorders that are not included on the List can still be the subject of a normal workers’ compensation claim.
8
› Out of date › - most are based on ILO Convention 42 (1934) › - minimal updates to most lists since! › - missing many conditions / exposures with clear evidence of relation to work. › Not structured usefully › - focus on exposure without specifying the relevant disorder › - required level of evidence sometimes not high.
9
› The principal of Deemed Diseases has been part of workers' compensation for most jurisdictions for a long time (decades). › › The current lists are very rarely used. › The current lists are not conducive to being used in the way intended. › › This project was designed to develop a revised list, which jurisdictions can choose to adopt (or adapt) as they wish.
10
› Develop an up-to-date Australian List of Deemed Diseases › Base this work on the most recent scientific evidence on the causal link between diseases and occupational exposure.
11
Decisions on inclusion and exclusion were required to be evidence-based. › Three criteria › - Strong evidence of causal link between the disease and occupational exposure; › - clear criteria for diagnosis; › - work responsible for a considerable proportion of cases of the disorder in the general community or in a subset of the community (for example, a particular occupation group).
12
› Evidence needs to be strong to allow presumption of a connection › A single study would be insufficient › Relied on systematic reviews of evidence › Sometimes used multiple good quality studies. › Based on strength of evidence, NOT the size of the effect.
13
› Need to be able to confidently establish the diagnosis › Occupational asthma › Musculoskeletal disorders › Skin disorders
14
› Not appropriate to include most disorders rarely related to work
but TB in a health care worker WOULD commonly be related to work
› Not appropriate to only include disorders where work is the major cause
e.g. This would mean lung cancer from asbestos would be excluded.
15
› Each group of disorders was considered separately › Key disorders within a group were considered separately › For each disorder, the available evidence was appraised regarding its connection to work and the proportion of work-related cases
16
› Focussed review of the scientific literature › Discussions with relevant jurisdictional representatives › No new primary investigations › No new systematic reviews of literature
17
› Overseen by a Temporary Advisory Group (TAG) › TAG reported to Strategic Issues Group – workers’ compensation. › Work performed by outside “expert” with advice from the TAG and support from Safe Work staff. › Consultation. › Peer review. › Response to comment and peer review. › Draft report completed. › Final report accepted. › Report released (August 2015): http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/workers-
compensation/deemed-diseases/pages/deemed-diseases
18
› The list is essentially a table. › Structured around the disorder. › Each disorder paired with one or more explicit exposures. › Accompanying guidance material:
19
› To what extent should the system: › - only encourage people to apply if the claim will almost certainly succeed, OR
20
› To what extent should the system:
OR
21
› Amount of exposure
› Latency
22
› Amount of exposure
› Latency
› Non-occupational exposures
e.g. lung cancer in person exposed to chromium at work and who smokes
› Content and format of the guidance material.
23
› Disorders that clearly can be related to occupational exposures but for which there are many other relevant exposures or exposures are hard to identify or measure:
› Noise
24
› Focuses on exposure › Often doesn’t have an explicit link to a specific disorder
e.g. “Diseases of a type generally accepted by the medical profession as caused by chrome or its toxic compounds.”.
25
› Focuses on exposure › Often doesn’t have an explicit link to a specific disorder
e.g. “Diseases of a type generally accepted by the medical profession as caused by chrome or its toxic compounds.”.
› Unfortunately, chromium can cause lung cancer, dermatitis, skin ulcers, perforation of the nasal septum, respiratory tract irritation, and chronic renal failure….. But the list doesn’t specify the disease……. So, there is still argument about whether the disease is related to the exposure or not.
26
› Links a specific disease to a specific exposure e.g. “Dermatitis associated with occupational exposure to chromium VI”, “Lung cancer associated with occupational exposure to chromium VI”.
27
28
29
› IN: Cancer-carcinogen pairs which IARC classify as having “sufficient” evidence
i.e. IARC Group 1 agents and relevant cancers e.g. Layrngeal cancer and acid mist
› NOT IN: › All other cancer-agent pairs
30
› IN:
Leptospirosis TB in relevant occupations (health worker, clinical laboratory worker, funeral parlour staff, farmer, veterinarian)
› NOT IN:
Legionellosis TB in other occupations
31
› IN:
NIHL - noise greater than 85dB(a)
› NOT IN:
Chronic solvent-induced toxic encephalopathy
32
› IN:
(Raynaud’s disease - vibration)
› NOT IN:
Ischaemic heart disease
33
› IN:
Occupational asthma - sensitising agents or irritants
› NOT IN:
COPD
34
› IN:
Non-infectious hepatitis – organic solvents
› NOT IN:
35
› IN:
Contact dermatitis - sensitising agents or irritants
› NOT IN:
36
› IN:
Bursitis at knee or elbow - prolonged external friction or pressure or repetitive motion Raynaud’s disease - vibration
› NOT IN:
Rotator cuff syndrome Carpal tunnel syndrome
› ……………
37
› IN:
Acute poisoning/toxicity – many specified agents
› NOT IN:
38
› The Technical Advisory Group requested that the guidance material include : › a short description of the disease, and › relevant information on
39
40
41
› The published report includes a formal mapping to ILO Schedule 42
42
› Deemed diseases should be an important component of workers’ compensation systems. › The Deemed Diseases Lists have rarely been used due to their content and their format. › The new List is more up to date and has a more appropriate format. › The List is available for consideration by jurisdictions……and by workers and employers.
43
44