May 22, 2012

Costs for 9/11 Emergency Responders’ Health Plan Under Scrutiny

The federal government has failed to provide detailed information on health services for World Trade Center emergency responders, despite a specific request from Congress to collect information that could help predict future costs.

Since 2001, $475 million has been spent on screening, monitoring and treating firemen, volunteers and government workers who suffered asthma, depression and other illnesses related to the World Trade Center terrorist attack, according to a new Government Accountability Office report.

The GAO previously reported in 2007 that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) did not have a “reliable estimate of the cost of providing monitoring and treatment services because, in part, it did not have actual cost data from the programs.”

A Department of Health and Human Services task force ordered funding for a processing center to streamline claims and collect detailed medical and demographic information about first responders. But NIOSH quashed the proposal in December 2007, citing uncertainly about funding and lack of industry interest.

To fill the void, NIOSH increased its reporting requirements for the health programs, such as more information on patient demographics, medical conditions, and cost. An unidentified NIOSH employee interviewed by the GAO acknowledged the current quality of information is not at the level envisioned by Congress.

The GAO concluded that the insufficient information leaves Congress without the means to analyze the medical data, expenses or those being treated.

More than 9,000 ground zero workers recently agreed to a $712.5 million settlement of their health injury claims against the city of New York in a case highlighted in a Center for Public Integrity investigation about law firms borrowing money from banks and hedge funds to finance complex cases.

FAST FACT: The World Trade Center health programs have screened about 44,000 emergency responders, monitored 23,000 and treated 13,000.

Following are other new watchdog reports released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), various federal Offices of Inspector General (OIG), and other government entities.

ENVIRONMENT

  • A USDA program tracking pesticide use, the Agriculture Chemical Usage data, failed to tell users it would be suspended for two years. A greater effort could improve the program and minimize overlaps with state and local governments. (GAO)

HEALTH

  • Congressional Budgeting Office estimates a new advisory board will cut Medicare spending by $15.5 billion when it begins work in 2013, as overall spending on government health programs approaches $3.9 trillion. (Congressional Research Service)

MISC.

  • The Library of Congress blocked access to the WikiLeaks website, hindering Congressional Research Service analysts from accessing the leaked documents. Critics say that will hurt CRS research prepared for lawmakers and force CRS analysts to access the files through personal computers or cell phones. (Secrecy News)
Reprinted by Permission © 2012, The Center for Public Integrity®. All Rights Reserved.

About the Author

Laurel Adams graduated cum laude from the University of Delaware in May of 2010 with majors in international relations, Spanish, and Latin American studies. She interned at Voices Without Borders in Wilmington, Del., and the British Embassy in Washington, D.C. While at the University of Delaware, Adams studied abroad in Argentina, helped start a Spanish conversation club, and served as an editor for the Sigma Iota Rho Journal of International Relations.

202-466-1300

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.