Page images
PDF
EPUB

Hon. LISTER HILL,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., October 5, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This will acknowledge your request of September 14, 1965, inviting the Bureau of the Budget to comment on S. 2517, a bill to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to improve its benefits, and for other

purposes.

S. 2517 provides interim improvements in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act. These changes are designed to correct some of the inadequacies which have developed in the level of benefits since the Federal Employees' Compensation Act was last amended in 1949. Since the level of benefits was last set, consumer prices have increased by 31 percent and consequently the purchasing power of compensation awards has declined proportionately. This bill would restore the purchasing power of previous compensation awards and would adjust maximum limitations on future awards. The other major feature of this bill is the provision for continuing benefits to surviving children from age 18 until age 23 if the child is still attending school.

A second step to improve this program is being taken through an auxiliary study being conducted by the President's Cabinet Committee on Federal Staff Retirement Systems. This study is to be completed on December 1, 1965, at which time data should be available upon which to base long-range improvements in the workmen's compensation protection for Federal employees. The recommendation contained in the present bill would provide some relief to the present inadequacies of the program and at the same time not c ain the consideration of the recommendations arising from this study.

Accordingly, Bureau of the Budget recommends enactment of S. 2517.
Sincerely yours,

PHILLIP S. HUGHES,

Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., May 11, 1966.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, 4230 Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your letter of March 30, 1966, requesting the views of this Office on S. 3154, a bill which would amend sections 9 and 40 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to permit the use of chiropractors.

The Secretary of Labor is recommending against this bill in the report being made to your committee.

The Bureau of the Budget concurs with the views expressed in the Department of Labor's report on S. 3154, and accordingly recommends against enactment of

[blocks in formation]

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, 4230 Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for a report from the Bureau of the Budget on S. 3253, a bill to amend section 33 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act so as to provide for the establishment of a Federal employee accident prevention program.

S. 3253 would direct the Secretary of Labor to promulgate safety and health standards, to develop safety programs, and to take other specified actions designed to reduce the incidence of occupational accidents and injuries to Federal employees. The bill would also replace the currently permissive provision in the act under which the President has established the Federal Safety Council by a provision establishing a similar Council.

The Bureau of the Budget believes that the objectives of S. 3253 can be attained more effectively under existing authorities. To this end, the President, in February 1965, launched Mission Safety-70, a program to achieve a 30-percent reduction in Federal employee accidents by 1970. Pursuant to his request the agencies have reported to the President on their activities and have also described their plans to improve their safety programs. Preliminary indications are that Mission Safety-70 has already had a salutary effect on the frequency of accidents involving Federal employees. We look forward to greater progress.

The Bureau of the Budget has set forth the policy of the executive branch on interagency committees in Circular No. A-63. As indicated by that circular, the administration generally opposes the establishment of such committees by legislation. This policy is designed to permit maximum flexibility in determining the membership, functions, and duration of interagency committees.

For the foregoing reasons, we recommend against favorable consideration of S. 3253 as its enactment would not be consistent with the administration's objectives.

Sincerely yours,

WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Acting Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,

BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, Washington, D.C., May 12, 1966.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, 4230 New Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is with reference to H.R. 10721, a bill to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to improve its benefits, and for other purposes, which is now before your committee.

The purpose of H.R. 10721 (when proposed by the Department of Labor in 1965) was to provide interim improvements in benefits for employees injured on the job, primarily by increasing the maximum benefits in relation to the change in the cost of living since 1949. However, the House of Representatives made a number of changes designed to convert H.R. 10721 to a long-term adjustment in the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, for example, by providing for subsequent adjustment of awards in relation to future changes in the Consumers Price Index. We have carefully considered the bill, as passed by the House, and believe that the changes are generally desirable-except for those relating to the changes in the minimum and maximum benefits.

The bill as introduced would have increased the maximum benefit from $525 to $680 per month. The bill as amended by the House would provide a maximum benefit of $1,397.81 per month ($16,774 per year), which is more than double the maximum benefit provided in H.R. 10721, as introduced. In view of the tax-free status of benefits, as well as the need to maintain comparability with other Government benefit programs, such as the military survivorship program, we believe a maximum of this amount cannot be justified. Therefore, we urge the adoption of the benefit formula proposed in the testimony of the Department of Labor on May 3 before your Subcommittee on Labor. While this formula would result in lower benefits for high-salaried employees than under the House-passed bill, they would be substantially higher than under the introduced bill. Furthermore, it would provide identical benefits to those under the bill before your committee for all employees up to GS-13.

The approach proposed in the Department of Labor testimony uses a so-called bent formula, under which credit is given for a lower proportion of higher salaries. Such a bent formula is now used in computing OASDI, VA dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, as well as family allowances under the present Federal Employees' Compensation Act. Under this approach, the fixed limitation on benefits would be eliminated; and all of the worker's salary which did not

exceed the base of GS-13, and one-third of any remaining salary, would be used as the wage base for computing benefits. In this manner, the wage-relatedness of compensation benefits would be continued through the higher grades, but without introducing excessive benefits for high-salaried employees. For example, in the event of the total disability of a GS-18 employee with dependents (current salary of $25,382) the proposed formula would yield benefits of $12,600 per year, calculated as follows: all of the wages up to the base of GS-13, or $12,510, and one-third of the remaining $12,872 salary, or $4,291-for a total wage base (for purposes of computing benefits) of $16,801; against this wage base, the same 75-percent formula which is in the present statute would be applied (but without fixed limitation) to calculate the total benefit of $12,600. (This would be double the maximum award under the present statute.)

The minimum benefit provision contained in the House-passed bill would allow the full salary of a GS-2 in cases of total disability. This is probably an error because, in the event of death, survivors would not receive more than 75 percent of a GS-2 salary. We recommend that the bill's minimum benefit for survivors be applied to disability cases as well, inasmuch as both have been subject to the same minimum heretofore. The defect in the bill arises from making $3,81V per year a minimum total disability benefit rather than the minimum wage base for computing benefits.

There are a few other minor problems in the bill on which we think some action is desirable. Staff of the Bureau and of the Labor Department would be available to work with committee staff toward that end.

If amended as recommended above, the enactment of H.R. 10721 would be consistent with the administration's objectives.

Sincerely yours,

Hon. LISTER HILL,

W. H. ROMMEL,

Acting Assistant Director for Legislative Reference.

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, May 2, 1966.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further response to your request for comments on S. 3154, a bill, to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act so as to permit injured employees entitled to receive medical services under such act to utilize the services of chiropractors.

As you know, on August 20, 1965, we reported to you on S. 530 and S. 744, bills which are similar to S. 3154. We opposed the enactment of these bills pointing out, among other things, that chiropractors usually lack hospital privileges and that there are statutory limitations upon their prescription of drugs or medicines in most States. In addition, we noted that it was not necessary to amend the act to permit treatment by chiropractors. Their services may now be used when they are recommended by and carried out under the direction of a U.S. medical officer or a duly qualified physician trained and licensed to engage in the practice of medicine.

The present bill is broader than S. 530 and S. 744 in that it would not limit participation of chiropractors to cases of injuries involving strains or sprains, as in the case of S. 530 or to "spinal adjustment by hands and spinal X-rays" as would S. 744. It follows from this that objections to S. 530 and S. 744 apply with greater force to the proposed bill.

Please consider our report on S. 530 and S. 744 as an expression of our views on S. 3154.

The Bureau of the Budget advises that from the standpoint of the administration's program there is no objection to the submission of this report.

Sincerely,

W. WILLARD WIRTZ,

Secretary of Labor.

Hon. LISTER HILL,

DEPARTMENT of Labor,
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY,
Washington, D.C., August 20, 1965.

Chairman, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in further response to your request for comments on S. 744 a bill to amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act so as to permit injured employees entitled to receive medical services under such act to utilize the services of chiropractors, and S. 530, a bill to amend sections 9 and 40 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as amended.

These bills would amend sections 9 and 40 of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act to grant statutory authority to duly qualified chiropractic practicioners to participate on an equality with physicians of medicine and osteopathic physicians in prescribing and recommending medical services, appliances and supplies for beneficiaries under the act.

In general, chiropracters, where licensed to practice under State law, are prohibited from the practice of surgery, and the administration or prescription of drugs or medicines. In addition to such statutory limitations, they usually have no hospital privileges. In view of these restrictions, it is doubtful whether Federal employees who sustain personal injuries in the course of their employment would be able to get adequate medical treatment under this particular theory of healing.

Moreover, the Federal Employees' Compensation Act does not preclude the use of chiropractic services in appropriate cases. The services of chiropractors, physiotherapists and other specialists may be used where recommended by and carried out under the direction of a U.S. medical officer or a duly qualified physician trained and licensed to engage in the practice of medicine. In view of this fact, it is not necessary to amend the act to permit the use of such services.

We note that S. 530 differs from S. 744 in that S. 530 limits chiropractic services to cases in which an injury involves a strain or a sprain. However, after carefully considering this difference, we are of the opinion that S. 530 is still subject to the above objections. Certain ailments which are entirely unrelated to strains or sprains are sometimes first manifested by the same symptoms. In such situations we doubt that a person who is not a medical doctor would be the best qualified to correctly diagnose the illness or to prescribe treatment therefor. For these reasons, we are opposed to the enactment of these bills. The Bureau of the Budget advises that there is no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the administration's program.

Sincerely,

W. WILLARD WIRTZ,
Secretary of Labor.

Senator RANDOLPH. I call attention to the excellent statement of Senator Warren Magnuson. He is testifying on Senate 3154. He had hoped to be present but he is unable to be here because of a difficult schedule. Without objection we shall consider Senator Magnuson's statement not for insertion but placed as if it were read. (The statement of Senator Magnuson follows:)

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the members of your subcommittee for extending me this opportunity to testify in favor of my bill, S. 3154. This measure would amend the Federal Employees' Compensation Act so as to permit injured employees entitled to receive medical services under such act to utilize the services of chiropractors. I have cosponsored this proposal because I believe that in those States where chiropractic is a licensed healing profession, the individual choice on the part of the patient should prevail.

The purpose of my bill is expressly to permit Federal employees who are injured in the performance of their duties and are entitled to receive medical care at Government expense under the Employees' Compensation Act, to utilize the services of chiropractors.

Forty-seven States, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the Canal Zone, most provinces in Canada-all have licensing laws which recognize chiropractic as a healing profession.

The public is utilizing services of chiropractors in ever increasing numbers. A large and growing number of people are convinced that the chiropractic method of treatment affords better means for the remedy and care of certain illnesses and injuries. Also, the chiropractic profession has been carrying on continuous and successful efforts to raise its educational requirements and professional standards Many Federal employees suffering injuries utilize the services of chiropractors. The Government is penalizing those employees injured in performance of their duty by causing them to pay for chiropractic treatment-even when such treatment hastens the employees' return to duty and reduces the cost of the injury to the Government.

It has been said that the Employees' Compensation Act gives the Commission discretion to permit the services of chiropractors to be utilized at Government expense. However, the Commission has so administered the law that the services of the chiropractor have to be recommended by a U.S. medical officer or a duly qualified physician. Experience has indicated that recommendation for chiropractic treatment is rarely, if ever, made by a medical doctor.

The Employees' Compensation Appeals Board is consistently denying Government employees the services of chiropractors. I am personally familiar with a case of several years ago where an employee received treatment from a chiropractor. He went back to work promptly. The chiropractor's bill for professional services in the amount of $6 was turned down for payment by the Federal Government. In deciding the case, the chairman of the three-man Appeals Board stated: "If we can stay with the law, as I understand it, I think your remedy is with the legislature."

The Appeals Board has consistently refused relief to Government employees, claiming that their remedy is with the legislature and that the present act denies a free choice of the healing arts.

For the above reasons, Mr. Chairman, I have cosponsored and am supporting S. 3154. I respectfully urge your committee to act favorably on our proposal.

Senator RANDOLPH. Now it is my personal privilege to extend a welcome to our hearing to the Honorable Esther Peterson, Assistant Secretary for Labor Standards. Mrs. Peterson, you are going to introduce the persons who accompany you so that our record will be complete and then the subcommittee members might wish to question or at least confer with your assistants.

« PreviousContinue »