History and description of the workers compensation system (Bernacki & Kalia) -- Measuring and comparing workers compensation claim cost (Tao & Bernacki) -- Risk factors associated with WC cost and return-to-work (Leung & Tao) -- Evidence based prediction of WC cost and return-to-work (Tao) -- The evolving role of opioids in workers' compensation (Lavin) -- Role of workplace onsite clinics (Kalia) -- Cost effective injury treatment (Lavin) -- Key insights from 15 years of workers' compensation research (Yuspeh & Bernacki) -- JHU workers' compensation program (Kalia, Lavin, Kraus, Barry) -- Appendix I. Instruction for cost monitoring calculation (Tao) -- Appendix II. Electronic example data for cost monitoring calculation (Tao)
The use of contemporaneous evaluation in personal injury insurance enables schemes to maintain and enhance their viability through access to quality information on cost, liabilities and outcomes. Best practice in research programs in the sector requires data on client outcomes and financial performance to be collected. This article presents a case study of the research and evaluation program for the National Serious Injury Service of New Zealand's Accident Compensation Corporation.
In: Collie , A , Gabbe , B J & Fitzharris , M P 2015 , ' Evaluation of a complex, population based injury claims management intervention for improving injury outcomes: study protocol ' , BMJ Open , vol. 5 , no. 5 , e006900 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006900
Introduction: Injuries resulting from road traffic crashes are a substantial cause of disability and death worldwide. Injured persons receiving compensation have poorer recovery and return to work than those with non-compensable injury. Case or claims management is a critical component of injury compensation systems, and there is now evidence that claims management can have powerful positive impacts on recovery, but can also impede recovery or exacerbate mental health concerns in some injured people. This study seeks to evaluate the impact of a population-based injury claims management intervention in the State of Victoria, Australia, on the health of those injured in motor vehicle crashes, their experience of the compensation process, and the financial viability of the compensation system. Methods and analysis: Evaluation of this complex intervention involves a series of linked but stand-alone research projects to assess the anticipated process changes, impacts and outcomes of the intervention over a 5-year time frame. Linkage and analysis of routine administrative and health system data is supplemented with a series of primary studies collecting new information. Additionally, a series of action research projects will be undertaken to inform the implementation of the intervention. A program logic model designed by the state government Transport Accident Commission in conjunction with the research team provides the evaluation framework. Ethics and dissemination: Relatively few studies have comprehensively examined the impact of compensation system processes on the health of injured persons, their satisfaction with systems processes, and impacts on the financial performance of the compensation scheme itself. The wholesale, population-based transformation of an injury claims management model is a rare opportunity to document impacts of system-level policy change on outcomes of injured persons. Findings will contribute to the evidence base of information on the public health effects of injury claims management ...
Why do disputants favor some conflict management strategies when managing certain territorial claim types—land, river, or maritime—but not others? We propose that state interests—defined via claim characteristics and interdependence—and transaction costs (i.e., the challenges associated with aggregating state preferences over outcomes) differ across claim types. These differences then incentivize states to cede varying levels of control over claim management, ultimately encouraging them to prioritize and institutionalize certain conflict management strategies when managing particular types of territorial claims. More specifically, we theorize and find that states pursue distinct management strategies when addressing their land (informal; bilateral negotiations and arbitration), river (more formal; third-party non-binding), and maritime claims (most formal; multilateral negotiations and legal processes).
As global water scarcity increases, both scholars and leaders have suggested that water will be a leading cause of future armed conflict. Yet other scholars argue that states typically cooperate rather than fight to manage their shared water resources. We address these arguments by examining the management of internationally shared rivers in the Americas, Western Europe, and the Middle East from 1900-2001. We propose hypotheses on the factors that lead states to become involved in disagreements over shared rivers as well as the factors that lead them to negotiate over these disagreements. Heckman probit analysis suggests that water scarcity - found by past work to be an important influence on armed conflict over rivers - is also an important influence on peaceful efforts to settle river problems; river claims are more likely where water supply is lower and demand is greater, but negotiations are also generally more likely in these same situations. Furthermore, while the existence of river treaties does not prevent the emergence of river claims, the presence of at least one treaty over the specific subject of the claim provides an important starting point that greatly increases the likelihood of negotiations over such claims. We conclude that the more pessimistic views of water management are missing an important part of the story. States are much more likely to negotiate in the most dangerous situations, and institutionalization of river resources can make an important contribution to negotiations over any disagreements that do emerge. Adapted from the source document.
AbstractAs global water scarcity increases, both scholars and leaders have suggested that water will be a leading cause of future armed conflict. Yet other scholars argue that states typically cooperate rather than fight to manage their shared water resources. We address these arguments by examining the management of internationally shared rivers in the Americas, Western Europe, and the Middle East from 1900–2001. We propose hypotheses on the factors that lead states to become involved in disagreements over shared rivers as well as the factors that lead them to negotiate over these disagreements. Heckman probit analysis suggests that water scarcity – found by past work to be an important influence on armed conflict over rivers – is also an important influence on peaceful efforts to settle river problems; river claims are more likely where water supply is lower and demand is greater, but negotiations are also generally more likely in these same situations. Furthermore, while the existence of river treaties does not prevent the emergence of river claims, the presence of at least one treaty over the specific subject of the claim provides an important starting point that greatly increases the likelihood of negotiations over such claims. We conclude that the more pessimistic views of water management are missing an important part of the story. States are much more likely to negotiate in the most dangerous situations, and institutionalization of river resources can make an important contribution to negotiations over any disagreements that do emerge.
Organisationen werden mit den Erwartungen verschiedener Anspruchsgruppen (Stakeholder) und den von ihnen verfolgten, oftmals konfligierenden Zielen konfrontiert. Jede Organisation sieht sich daher vor die Notwendigkeit gestellt zu entscheiden, wie sie im Rahmen des Stakeholder-Managements mit diesen verschiedenen Gruppierungen umgehen will. Eine mögliche Ausrichtung eines Stakeholder-Managements verfolgt nicht die normativ-ethisch orientierte Auffassung, dass alle Stakeholder dieselbe Beachtung verdienen. An ihre Stelle tritt die Überzeugung, dass die Beziehungen zwischen verschiedenen Stakeholdern wie auch zwischen Stakeholdern und Organisation sowohl kooperativer, unterstützender als auch konflikthafter, durch Interessengegensätze geprägter Natur sein können. Diese angesichts begrenzter Ressourcen, Zeit und Managementkapazitäten realistische Perspektive bildet die Grundannahme der Untersuchung des Stakeholder-Managements von Nonprofit-Organisationen (NPOs). NPOs haben nicht die Erzielung verteilungsfähiger Überschüsse für ihre Eigner, sondern die Erbringung bestimmter Leistungen für ihre Mitglieder oder Dritte zum Ziel. Daraus ergeben sich Spezifika dieser Organisationen, aufgrund derer ein aktives Stakeholder-Management einen besonders hohen Stellenwert erlangt. Im Rahmen der Studie wird untersucht, wer die Stakeholder einer NPO sind und welche für das Stakeholder-Management relevanten Besonderheiten (z.B. Freiwilligkeit, Vertrauen) NPOs auszeichnen. Anschließend werden mögliche Kriterien zur Bewertung von Stakeholdern vorgestellt. Dazu gehören die Merkmale der (1) Macht, (2) Legitimität sowie (3) Dringlichkeit. Daran knüpft eine Darstellung der organisatorischen und personalwirtschaftlichen Maßnahmen des Stakeholder-Managements an. Sie umfassen (1) Normstrategien des Stakeholder-Managements, (2) die stakeholderorientierte Gestaltung der Organisationsverfassung, (3) lose Kopplung zur Abarbeitung vielfältiger Anforderungen bzw. (4) das Stakeholder-Management durch Anreizgestaltung und Personalauswahl. In einer abschließenden Zusammenfassung merkt der Autor an, dass NPOs Besonderheiten aufweisen, die sie von den Organisationen des Markts und des Staats abheben. Eines dieser Spezifika besteht darin, dass sie sich im Bereich des Stakeholder-Managements besonderen Herausforderungen gegenüber sehen, da sie zahlreiche Stakeholder aufweisen, die teilweise sehr mächtig sind und die außerordentlich unterschiedliche Erwartungen an die Organisation richten. (ICG2)
"Co-management boards, established under comprehensive land claims agreements, have become key players in land-use planning, wildlife management, and environmental regulation across Canada's North. This book provides a detailed account of the operation and effectiveness of these boards while addressing a central question: Have they been successful in ensuring substantial Indigenous involvement in policies affecting the land and wildlife in their traditional territories? While identifying constraints on the role Northern Indigenous peoples play in board processes, Graham White finds that overall they exercise extensive decision-making influence. These findings are provocative and offer valuable insights into our understanding of the importance of land claims boards and the role they play in the evolution of treaty federalism in Canada."--
We examine how a good faith effort at collaboration with Native peoples in the regulation of white-fronted geese in North America nonetheless resulted in their marginalization. Our investigation explores how dramatically different ways of knowing are articulated and contested in a complex, structurally differentiated, and highly professionalized institutional setting—the Migratory Bird Management Regime of North America. We find local knowledge emerging among and being legible to the street-level administrators of the management regime, but unable to penetrate regional management, where methodological commitments reinforced existing problem frames and administrative objectives.
In 1993 the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) was signed and this lead to the creation of Nunavut in 1999. Under the NLCA caribou and other wildlife in Nunavut are co-managed by government and Inuit. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board (NWMB) is the main instrument of wildlife management, working with its government and Inuit co-management partners to manage caribou within the principles of conservation outlined in the NLCA, using both west¬ern scientific knowledge and traditional knowledge. When caribou herds cross provincial or territorial boundaries, management boards or management planning committees are established.
