EMPLOYER/DER INVOLVEMENT IN SHY BLADDER COLLECTIONS; WHAT DO YOU DO?

Recently, a number of cases came to light which indicate that employers are still not clear on what to do in certain situations related to shy bladder collections.

Typical scenario: employee cannot contribute a sufficient quantify of urine thereby starting the “shy bladder” process. This means that the employee has up to three hours in which to contribute a urine specimen of sufficient quantity (40mL). The clock starts ticking and the employee may make several attempts to provide a specimen. Trouble creeps in when a couple of hours have gone by; the employee cannot provide enough urine and is starting to get anxious.

In some cases, the employee calls the employer/DER and states that there is a problem providing a specimen. Frequently, the employer/DER tells the employee to go back to work or home and come back the next day to provide a sample.

In other cases, the clinic is about to close and the employee only had two hours in which to provide a sample. Either the clinic or the employee calls the employer/DER, presents the situation and the employer/DER directs the employee to return to work or go home and come back the next day.

Frequently, employers call and ask how to categorize the test conducted the next day, i.e., if the original was a random should the test the next day also be considered as random. This indicates that they have no clue as to how the process is supposed to work or what are the regulatory requirements.

Here are a few items to address before you, as an employer, get caught in a bind. In most cases, the employer controls when an employee is scheduled to go for a drug test. The rules direct testing to be conducted spread throughout the work shift. In other words, some tests should be conducted at the start of a shift, others during the workday, and some at the end of the work shift. However, as the employer, you should know the time your collection sites are operational. So, if you direct an employee to go to a clinic for a collection, it would be advisable to send the employee at a time that would provide at least three hours to complete the collection before the clinic closes. For example, if the clinic closes at 6:00pm you should try to get your employees in for a collection no later than 3:00pm in case there is a shy bladder and a requirement to provide at least three hours for the employee to provide a specimen kicks in.

Of course, an alternative is that you or your Third Party Administrator make provisions for the clinic to stay open past their regular hours should a shy bladder situation arise. Then you can send your employee for a test at any time the clinic is open. You can also make provisions that should your main collection site/clinic close, the employee can be transported (under supervision) to another clinic that is open longer hours. Under no circumstances should you authorize your employee to leave a collection site before the three hours for collection have expired. Should that happen, you must immediately send the employee back to the clinic for a collection – as soon as you are aware of the situation or the next day. Do not postpone this to later in the day or the second day. And yes, this would be considered the same test type, i.e., if the original test was a random test, then it still remains a random test. Of course, an auditor will take a major exception to this and you need to be prepared on how to respond to why you told the employee to abort the original testing process.

A follow-up on a previous issue: DOT still has not received a court decision on the whole issue of mandatory direct observation for return-to-duty and follow-up testing. They are awaiting a court decision and as soon as this is forthcoming, everyone will be notified.

Some Illnesses Are More Critical Than Others

Your mortgage lender may offer you several financial products including critical illness cover. However, as they are not specialists in this field, you will probably find a better deal elsewhere.

The level of cover on offer is just as important as the premium when looking for critical illness cover. The policies from Nationwide and Alliance and Leicester are particularly limited according to Kevin Carr, who is a senior adviser at LifeSearch, a telephone and online life assurance broker. The Alliance and Leicester covers only eight critical illnesses, with Nationwide covering just 10, whereas the market leader, Swiss Life, covers 38.

Loss of speech, deafness, blindness, diabetes, Aids and Parkinsons are some of the conditions not covered by the two High Street names. Mr Carr says that it is not worth considering a policy, which covers less than 25 ailments.

An umbrella term included in all policies is 'total and permanent disabilities', This term means you are covered for any ailment, which prevents you from working permanently.

You need to be alert to the wording as some policies cover 'any occupation' whereas others only cover your 'own' occupation. You will not receive a payout under a 'any occupation' policy unless you are totally incapable of carrying out a job, however menial. Therefore Mr Carr advises you sign up for a 'own' occupation policy.

There are a range of companies as well as Swiss Life who offer comprehensive cover including Legal and General, Norwich Union, Standard Life, Scottish Equitable, Scottish Provident, Friends Provident, Liverpool Victoria, Skandia and Zurich Life.

For years life insurance has been promoted by mortgage lenders. This has resulted in critical illness cover never being considered by many people. There are four times as many claims on critical illness policies compared to life policies, when the consumer has taken out both types of insurance.

Life insurance cover is extremely important, especially if you have dependents, as they will welcome the lump sum payment on your death. However critical illness cover should be the priority if you have debts to settle, particularly a mortgage. Mr Carr considers critical illness to be more important as it covers the cost of your house and food, even if you are ill and unable to work.

The premiums will be higher if you are a smoker and will also rise if you are older. A decreasing term policy, which is targeted at people only wanting to cover the cost of their mortgage, is the cheapest. However, a level term mortgage, where the amount of cover remains the same, is recommended by Mike Boles, a director at Savills Private Finance. This is because aspiring homeowners are likely to need larger mortgages, which will require an increase in the amount of cover.

Vegetarians Given Life Insurance Carrot

At not-for-profit insurance business has launched a scheme which offers fish-eaters and vegetarians a reduced price life insurance policy.

The deal, believed to be the first of its type, is being pioneered by Animal Friends Insurance (AFI). The company is offering non-meat eaters a 6 per cent discount on insurance premiums

The firm claimed that vegetarians ought to pay less for the insurance cover, which pays out if the policyholder dies, because they were less likely to suffer from a range of chronic diseases, including some cancers.

Elaine Fairfax, AFI's managing director, claims that the risk of vegetarians being diagnosed with certain cancers is reduced by up to 40% and the risk of them suffering from heart disease is cut by up to 30%, but despite this they have, until now, had to pay the same life insurance premiums as people who eat meat.

She says that AFI think that this is unfair and says the life insurance industry should recognise the fact that being a vegetarian can create a very positive impact on life expectancy and cut its premiums accordingly.

A full-price policy is also on the market for meat eaters. Both policies are underwritten by LV=, which used to be known as Liverpool Victoria.

In common with standard life insurance policies, a range of factors contribute to the cost of the premium including whether the applicant smokes, their age, weight and sex.

At the moment, AFI is funding the 6% discount itself from the fee it receives from LV=. In the future, however, Ms Fairfax said the company's aim was to offer lower premiums on specialist policies. In offering the deal, the firm is hoping to sign up enough vegetarians to make it viable for LV= to underwrite another policy that takes the vegetarian's diet into account.

Indeed there are significant savings to be made, the discount reveals that a 40-year-old non-smoker purchasing £300,000 worth of cover might potentially save £393.60 over a 20-year period, says Ms Fairfax

Where life insurance is concerned, her company believes that insurers should begin to treat meat eaters and non-meat eaters in a way that is similar to the way they view smokers and non-smokers. Ms Fairfax hopes that other companies in the insurance industry will follow the initiative taken by AFI.