Friday, August 18, 2017

Dallas Weight Loss Specialists – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – 469-434-3380

Watch video on YouTube here:
via MichaelCherkassky,M.D.A

Dallas Weight Loss Specialists – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – 469-434-3380 posted first on

Health and environmental groups sue EPA over new rules on toxics

Earth Justice, the United Steelworkers, the Environmental Defense Fund and other public interest groups are suing the Trump administration over two new regulations to address toxic substances. The groups filed petitions last week with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. They are asking to court to review the rules which EPA published on July 20, 2017. The groups will argue that the regulations are contrary to Congress’ intent.

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Daniel Rosenberg and Jennifer Sass use these photos to illustrate the matter.  It’s the difference between what Congress intended when it amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and what EPA administrator Scott Pruitt has done with the new law.

Courtesy of D.Rosenberg and J.Sass at NRDC and their blog post “To Pruitt EPA: See You and Your Illegal TSCA Rules in Court.”


One of the rules being challenged addresses the process and criteria for identifying high-priority chemicals for risk evaluations. The criteria adopted by EPA narrows the breadth of their assessments to only include certain uses of the chemical being evaluated.

“The Trump EPA deliberately bypassed the law’s clear requirement that safety assessments be based on ALL uses of a chemical. By allowing some or even most chemical uses to be ignored, the EPA proposes to do the very thing the new law was intended to halt,” said Mike Belliveau, Executive Director of the Environmental Health Strategy Center.

Carving out this use or that use misrepresents the numerous ways in which individuals are exposed to a toxic substance. Slicing and dicing potential exposures was a weakness in the 40 year-old law. Congress intended to fix that deficiency when it amended TSCA in 2016.

As Richard Denison at Environmental Defense Fund writes:

“In reforming TSCA, Congress explicitly required that EPA determine whether or not a chemical substance, not individual uses, presents unreasonable risk, and to do so by conducting comprehensive risk evaluations. This is because, while exposures resulting from certain uses of a chemical viewed in isolation may present low risk to some groups of people, when multiple exposures are combined and when all potentially susceptible subpopulations are considered, such a chemical may well present unreasonable risk and warrant restrictions.”

The second rule being challenge is a companion to the first. It addresses the procedures for determining whether a high-priority chemical present an “unreasonable risk to health or the environment.”  That’s a key phrase in the 2016 amendments. It was crafted to ensure the law puts primacy on health protection.

Three different lawsuits on the rules have been filed by public interest groups. The Environmental Defense Fund is party on one of the suits, the Natural Resources Defense Council on another lawsuit, and a coalition of groups including Safer Chemicals Healthy Families and the Union of Concerned Scientists are parties on the third lawsuit (here, here). The groups filed their petitions with the Court last week. At a later date they will be required to lay out their arguments challenging the two EPA rules.

In joining the lawsuit with Safer Chemicals Healthy Families, Linda Reinstein with the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization said:

“EPA’s failure to review and restrict asbestos in 1991 led thousands of people to be exposed to the deadly substance, resulting in countless new cases of mesothelioma. Similar failures under the new law will, tragically, have similar deadly results.”

Article source:Science Blogs

Friday catch-up, innovation, and what kills it.

A few items of interest from around the work comp world…then a brief discussion of what works, and what doesn’t, in driving innovation.

Brian Allen’s now with Mitchell International’s ScriptAdvisor PBM operation.  A highly experienced government affairs professional, Brian’s been in the business for longer than he might admit.  Good pickup by Mitchell, which has rapidly grown its work comp pharmacy business and is likely the third largest PBM.

The fine folks at BWC Ohio have done exemplary work reducing overuse of opioids. Under the leadership of John Hanna MBA, RPh, over the last five years, BWC saw:

  • 44% fewer patients were taking opioids,
  • 48% lower opioid consumptiomn overall,
  • a prior authorization turnaround time of 4 hours (!) down from 2.5 days,
  • overall drug costs were down 7.7% year over year,

John and his folks have saved countless lives, prevented untold misery, significantly reduced employers’ and taxpayers costs, and done it all at a governmental organization. Yes, they have some significant advantages, but so do you.

John’s retiring this fall, but I fully expect BWC to continue to make progress as Nick Trego PharmD takes the reins…

And yes, I do have a man-crush on John.  I have huge respect for him. Thanks WorkCompCentral for the tip.

Innovation CAN happen in insurance – here’s a quick case study of one company’s pursuit of improvement via incremental, evolutionary, and disruptive innovation. 

Here’s the summary – but you really should read this.

Creating a culture of innovation is about much more than hiring a Chief Innovation Officer or creating a new department.  Culture change takes time and significant effort, and shifting culture toward innovation is no different. The process may start at the top, but it’s fundamentally about getting all employees involved.

But bureaucracy can frustrate innovation…

Also from Harvard Business Review, a piece on how bureaucracy screws up business and results and frustrates people.

(respondents) reported spending an average of 28% of their time—more than one day a week—on bureaucratic chores such as preparing reports, attending meetings, complying with internal requests, securing sign-offs and interacting with staff functions.  Moreover, a significant portion of that work seems to be creating little or no value.

But here’s the key takeaway – “Only 20% of respondents said that unconventional ideas were greeted with interest or enthusiasm in their organization. Eighty percent said new ideas were likely to encounter indifference, skepticism, or outright resistance.”

Article source:Managed Care Matters

Best Dallas Weight Loss Specialist

The blog post Best Dallas Weight Loss Specialist is courtesy of:

Best Dallas Weight Loss Specialist – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – 469-434-3380

If you’re in the process of choosing which weight loss program you’re going to embark upon, you’d certainly be remiss to not consider some of the many benefits of working closely with a the best Dallas weight loss specialist. While many weight reduction products and services come with their fair share of side effects and often result in only temporary results, working with a medical weight loss specialist can be far more successful for many individuals.

Michael Cherkassky, M.D. 12850 Spurling Road, Suite #110 Dallas TX, 75230 469-434-3380

For one thing, the weight loss methods utilized by Dr. Cherkassky involve natural methods like wholesome nutrition and frequent exercise, both of which have virtually no side effects when used correctly. The supplements he utilizes when necessary are also associated with minimal side effects, making his weight loss programs ideal for those who are looking to lose weight without worrying about negative ramifications.

One of the other amazing benefits of choosing a doctor who specializes in medical weight loss is that you’ll receive frequent care from qualified specialists who are able to oversee your overall health in a detailed, helpful manner. Instead of just being familiar with weight reduction, physicians like Dr. Michael Cherkassky are able to ensure that your health is improved and not negatively impacted by your weight reduction service.

Best Dallas Weight Loss Specialist – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – 469-434-3380

The Best Dallas weight loss specialist - Dr. Michael Cherkassky

Best Dallas Weight Loss Clinic – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – Call 469-434-3380

All things considered, you should definitely learn more about what the services at weight loss clinics can offer you. You might not know it, but your next and final successful diet program might be closer than you think. If you’re considering visiting a specialist and you’re trying to choose which of the local doctors is best for you, we would love to hear from you at 469-434-3380. Our friendly staff would love to answer your questions regarding the benefits of working with a weight loss specialist Dallas TX; call today to schedule a consultation!

Best Dallas Weight Loss Specialist posted first on

Dallas Weight Loss Specialist – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – 469-434-3380

Watch video on YouTube here:
via MichaelCherkassky,M.D.A

Dallas Weight Loss Specialist – Dr. Michael Cherkassky – 469-434-3380 posted first on

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Don’t miss this HWR

This month’s Health Wonk Review provides great insight into where healthcare is headed – and what we need to watch for.  Thanks to Health System Ed’s Peggy Salvatore for mining the best of the blogosphere.

A couple of don’t miss posts:

Who Really Needs the Public Option? Trump Country, Trump Country is most in need of a way to bypass the ACA marketplaces entirely. Democrats’ favorite policy option – the public option – would be most valuable in precisely the deep-red areas that went most fervently for Republicans and the President.  Get it all here.

And friend and colleague Tom Lynch focuses on workers’ compensation cost control has focused mainly on lowering medical costs, which is almost always an outsourced function. Consequently, many employers have relinquished control over their workers’ comp program, migrating away from best practices that are at the heart of true workers comp cost control. Read the full blog here.

Article source:Managed Care Matters

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Healthcare reform – Implications for work comp, Part 2

We’re all suffering from repeal-and-replace exhaustion, so I’ll keep this light and entertaining.  Or at least try to.

Quick – Is work comp the lion or the gazelle?

With ACA very likely to remain the law of the land, here are the over-arching implications for workers’ comp:

  • Growing cost pressure on providers from group health and governmental payers will make those providers increasingly look to work comp to replace “lost income”
  • Healthier workers will heal faster and need fewer healthcare services

Revenue maximization is the industry term for getting as much revenue from each patient as possible.  This entails:

Rest assured work comp is one of the payers in the cross-hairs of “revenue maximizers”.

Next, as those with coverage likely won’t lose it, and we may see even more folks covered if other states adopt Medicaid as we discussed yesterday, the good news is

Can we quantify this?  Not yet, but the research clearly indicates health reform has been good for comp.

As providers adopt new revenue maximization approaches, will work comp be able to keep them at bay?

What does this mean for you?

Which gazelle will you be – the one resting in the lion’s jaws, or his slightly faster brother?

Article source:Managed Care Matters