Article Text

Download PDFPDF

049 Evidence Based Treatment Guidelines: At Work in a Microcosm
  1. P Whelan1,3,4,6,9,10,
  2. P Denniston1,2,5,6,7,9,10
  1. 1Work Loss Data Institute, LLC, Encinitas,USA
  2. 2American Academy of Disability Evaluating Physicians (AADEP), Chicago, USA
  3. 3Insurance Council of Texas (ICT), Austin, USA
  4. 4Industry Education Council (IEC), Albany, USA
  5. 5American College of Occupational & Environmental Medicine (ACOEM), Elk Grove, USA
  6. 6New York Self-Insurers Association (NYSIA) Buffalo, NY, USA
  7. 7American Association of State Compensation Insurance Funds (AASCIF) Towson, USA
  8. 8International Association of Industrial Accident Boards (IAIABC) Madison, WI, USA
  9. 9Business Council of New York Albany, NY USA
  10. 10New York Claims Association New York, NY, USA


Background Medical treatment under workers’ compensation represents just a miniscule portion (about 3 percent) of total medical costs in the US Furthermore, legislation and rules are determined autonomously by each state. Worker’ comp medical care, and the outcomes of that care, in each state theoretically can represent a microcosm of what could be achieved in an entire country. Impact of Evidence-based Treatment Guidelines: A trend began in 2003, starting with California, for states to consider adopting Evidence-Based Treatment Guidelines as a mechanism to insure timely and quality care for injured workers by following the least invasive, most-effective treatments today’s science has to offer. Bi-products to the effective implementation of EBTG, include earlier return to work, better outcomes resulting in reduced indemnity costs, less friction in the system (providers know what treatments are authorised and will be paid for), fewer episodes of over-utilisation of services, and decreased medical costs, benefiting employers, insurers, providers and business. Outcomes where true EBTG have been implemented: Ohio adopted EBTG in 2003. A Pilot conducted in 2005 showed a decrease in medical costs by 64%, lost days by 69% and treatment delays by 77%. Texas adopted EBTG in 2006; Total costs have declined by 50%, patients are recovering more quickly, more providers are willing to treat these patients, opioid abuses have declined and many states are looking to adopt this model. Other state outcomes and essential elements needed in an EBTG will be discussed.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.