2006 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was passed by Congress in 2000, and amended in 2004, to compensate American workers who put their health on the line to help fight the Cold War. Many of these workers developed cancer and other serious diseases because, in the course of doing their jobs, they were exposed to radiation and other toxic substances. They and their families have paid dearly for their role in protecting our democracy; the purpose of this program is to acknowledge their sacrifice and to compensate them in some small way for their suffering and loss. As originally enacted in 2000, EEOICPA included Part B (administered by the Department of Labor (DOL)) and Part D (administered by the Department of Energy (DOE)). When Congress repealed Part D and enacted Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act in October 2004, effectively transferring responsibility for administration of contractor employee compensation from the DOE to the DOL, it also made provisions for creation of the Office of the Ombudsman for Part E. Congress directed that the Office of the Ombudsman be an independent office, located within the Department of Labor, and charged it with a three- fold mission: To conduct outreach to claimants and potential claimants; To make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor about where to locate resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims; To submit an Annual Report to Congress by February 15, setting forth the number and types of complaints, grievances and requests for assistance received by the Ombudsman, and an assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants under Part E during the previous year. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(e). During 2006, the Office of the Ombudsman undertook outreach efforts to many claimants and potential claimants, principally focusing upon areas of the country to which we had not traveled during 2005. Throughout 2006, we also focused upon responding to the many letters, emails and telephone calls we received, requesting information or assistance, or expressing concerns about various aspects of the Part E compensation program. The concerns expressed to us ranged from issues with the statute itself, and/or the implementing regulations, policies and procedures, to general administrative issues. In responding to complaints, grievances and requests for assistance, we regularly meet with and consult the staff of the Department of Labor’s Division of Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation (DEEOIC). These meetings and consultations are fruitful. During the course of 2007, the Office of the Ombudsman expects to: Conduct additional outreach, traveling to meet with claimants and potential claimants to hear, firsthand, of their concerns and difficulties in obtaining Part E compensation. Respond to emails and telephone calls from claimants, potential claimants, and other members of the public. Continue our interactions with DEEOIC. This report is a short summary of the comments that this Office has received as a result of the personal contacts, the emails, and the telephone conversations from claimants erns about various aspects of the Part E compensation program

2010 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Public Law 108-375 which was enacted by Congress in 2004 also created an Office of the Ombudsman (the Office). Pursuant to this law, the Secretary of Labor was urged to take appropriate action to ensure the independence of the Office within the Department of Labor, including independence from the other officers and employees of the Department of Labor engaged in activities related to the administration of the provision of the EEOICPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(d). The Secretary of Labor appointed the first Ombudsman in February 2005, and the Office submitted its first report to Congress covering calendar year 2005 on February 15, 2006. When created in 2004, the Office was scheduled to sunset on October 28, 2007. However, in January 2007, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 extending the Office until October 28, 2012. Moreover, while the Office initially only had authority with respect to claims filed under Part E of the EEOICPA, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 expanded the authority of the Office to include Part B of the EEOICPA. The statute outlines three duties for the Office: To provide information on the benefits available under Part B and Part E and on the requirements and procedures applicable to the provision of such benefits; To make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the location of resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims for benefits under Part B and Part E; and To carry out such other duties as the Secretary shall specify. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(c). In addition to these specified duties, the statute also provides that the Office is to submit an annual report to Congress setting forth: a) The number and types of complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance received by the Office during the preceding year, and b) An assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants during the preceding year

2007 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] The Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) was passed by Congress in 2000, and amended in 2004, to compensate American workers who put their health on the line to help fight the Cold War. In the course of doing their jobs, many of these workers were exposed to radiation and other toxic substances and, as a result, developed cancer and other serious diseases. The purpose of this program is to acknowledge the sacrifice of these workers and to compensate them in some small way for their suffering and loss. As originally enacted in 2000, EEOICPA included Part B (administered by the Department of Labor (DOL)) and Part D (administered by the Department of Energy (DOE)). In October 2004, Congress repealed Part D and enacted Part E of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, effectively transferring responsibility for administration of contractor employee compensation from the DOE to the DOL. The 2004 amendments also created the Office of the Ombudsman for Part E and directed that it be an independent office, located within the Department of Labor, charged with a three-fold mission: To conduct outreach to claimants and potential claimants to provide information on the benefits available under this part and on the requirements and procedures applicable to the provision of such benefits; To make recommendations to the Secretary of Labor about where to locate resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims; To submit an Annual Report to Congress by February 15, setting forth the number and types of complaints, grievances and requests for assistance received by the Ombudsman, and an assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants under Part E during the previous year

2009 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Enacted in 2004, Public Law 108-375 also created an Office of the Ombudsman (the Office) and urged the Secretary of Labor to take appropriate action to ensure that it be an independent Office within the Department of Labor (DOL), including independence from the other officers and employees of the DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provision of the EEOICPA. See 42 U.S.C. § 7385s-15(d). The Secretary of Labor appointed an Ombudsman in February 2005, and the Office submitted its first report to Congress covering calendar year 2005 on February 15, 2006. When initially created, the duties of the Office only extended to Part E. On October 28, 2009, Public Law 111-84, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, expanded the authority of the Office to also include Part B of the EEOICPA. The day to day activities of the Office are driven by two goals; 1) to provide information and assistance to claimants and potential claimants regarding the EEOICPA; (2) to provide opportunities for claimants and potential claimants to express their complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance concerning this program. In achieving these goals, the Office: Engages in outreach – We sponsor town hall meetings, as well as attend other meetings, forums and workshops where we discuss the EEOICPA and its requirements. This year, with the assistance of the efforts of a task force comprised of many of the agencies involved with the EEOICPA we were able to attend 20 outreach meetings in 11 different cities. Clarifies/explains documents and procedures – The EEOICPA can be very complicated and decisions are oftentimes based on very technical medical, scientific and/or legal concepts. We are contacted by claimants who find it difficult to comprehend these concepts. In addition, there are a many nuances to this program – for example for many of the “rules” there is at least one exception. Some claimants need assistance “steering the right course” as they proceed with their claim. Receives complaints, grievances and requests for assistance – Individuals with pending claims; individuals whose claims were denied; as well as some individuals whose claims were awarded, contact the Office or attend our town hall meetings, to voice complaints and grievances with this program. We are also contacted on occasion by claimants who have complimentary comments concerning the program – usually complimenting the services provided by individuals associated with the program. Provides assistance – It is rare when we are contacted by an individual who simply wants to voice a complaint. Most individuals contact us because they are seeking assistance with their claim. In some instances, we are asked to explain a word or decision. On other occasions, we are asked to provide assistance locating necessary records, or our input is sought on how to proceed with a claim. Inasmuch as many claimants do not have access to computers, we also frequently provide public information such as copies the Site Exposure Matrices; Site Profiles; listing of the 22 cancers covered for purposes of Special Exposure Cohorts, etc. Within the limits of our authority and resources, we assist claimants however we can. The report that follows is a synthesis of the many e-mails, letters, telephone calls, faxes, and face to face conversations that members of this staff had over the past year

2012 Annual Report to Congress

[Excerpt] Public Law 108-375 not only repealed Part D and established Part E it also created the Office of the Ombudsman (the Office). The law urged the Secretary to ensure the independence of the Office within DOL, including independence from other officers and employees of DOL engaged in activities related to the administration of the provisions of EEOICPA. Public Law 108-375 also contained an express sunset date, terminating the requirement for the Office on October 28, 2007. On October 22, 2007, shortly before the sunset provision was to take effect, former Secretary Chao issued a Memorandum determining that the Department of Labor should continue to have an Office of the Ombudsman in the event that the statutory requirement expired. This Memorandum took effect on October 28, 2007. Subsequently, on January 28, 2008, Section 3116 of the FY08 Defense Authorization Act, Public Law 110-181, effectively reinstated the statutory requirement for the Office by extending the sunset date until October 28, 2012. On October 24, 2012, shortly before the October 28, 2012 sunset date, former Secretary Solis signed a Memorandum continuing the Office under the authority of the previous Memorandum signed on October 22, 2007. EEOICPA outlines three duties for the Office: Provide information about the benefits available under Part B and Part E and on the requirements and procedures applicable to the provision of such benefits; Make recommendations to the Secretary regarding the location of resource centers for the acceptance and development of claims under Part B and E; and Carry out such other duties as the Secretary specifies. See 42 U.S.C. §7385s-15(c). In addition, 42 U.S.C. §7385s-15(e) requires the Office to submit an annual report to Congress setting forth: The number and types of complaints, grievances, and requests for assistance received by the Office during the preceding year, and An assessment of the most common difficulties encountered by claimants and potential claimants during the preceding year

The relationship between patients’ illness beliefs and recovery after stroke

The Common Sense Model (CSM) is a useful framework for understanding mood and treatment adherence amongst survivors in the acute phase of stroke. CSM stroke studies have thus far focused on the single outcomes, mood and medication adherence, neglecting other aspects of post-stroke recovery (i.e., Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) and disability). The purpose of this study was to examine relationships between baseline illness beliefs and three-month post-stroke HRQL, mood and disability. A longitudinal observational design was adopted, involving 50 survivors (mean age = 66.9 years, 68% male). The primary outcome, HRQL, was measured using EQ-5D-5L. The secondary outcome, mood was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; and disability, using the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. The Stroke Illness Perception Questionnaire-Revised measured illness beliefs. Spearman’s correlations showed that beliefs about the fluctuating effects of stroke (ρ = 0.50, p less than 0.001) and considerable distress at baseline were significantly associated with worse mood three-months post-stroke (ρ = 0.41, p less than 0.001). Baseline illness beliefs were not significantly related to three-month post-stroke HRQL or disability. Despite being limited by a modest sample size, the findings reiterated the need for routine clinical assessment of mood immediately after stroke, and indicated that simultaneous measurement of illness beliefs may also be beneficial

When Mental Illness Becomes a Police Matter

This article also appeared on p. 8 of the Fall 2017 print edition.Mental illness is not a police matter in and of itself and most people with mental illness (MI) are not involved in the criminal justice system. When police do interact with an individual with MI, care needs to be taken not to label the person as the problem but to focus on behavior that causes harm to self and others.Interactions usually not violent / Hard to quantify / Reference

Implicitly estimating the cost of mental illness in Australia: a standard-of-living approach

Background Estimating the costs of mental illness provides useful policy and managerial information to improve the quality of life of people living with a mental illness and their families. Objective This paper estimates the costs of mental health in Australia using the standard-of-living approach. Methods The cost of mental illness was estimated implicitly using a standard of living approach. We analyse data from 16 waves of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey (HILDA) using 209,871 observations. Unobserved heterogeneity was mitigated using an extended random-effects estimator. Results The equivalised disposable income of people with mental illness, measured by a self-reported mental health condition, needs to be 50% higher to achieve a similar living standard as those without a mental illness. The cost estimates vary considerably with measures of mental illness and standard of living. An alternative measure of mental illness using the first quintile of the SF-36 mental health score distribution resulted in an increase of estimated costs to 80% equivalised disposable income. Conclusion People with mental illness need to increase equivalised disposable income, which includes existing financial supports, by 50%-80% to achieve a similar level of financial satisfaction as those without a mental illness. The cost estimate can be substantially higher if the overall life satisfaction is used to proxy for standard of living