REVIEW ON THE LIST OF OCCUPATIONAL AND WORK-RELATED ...oshc.dole.gov.ph/images/documents/Research...

REVIEW ON THE LIST OF OCCUPATIONAL AND WORK-RELATED DISEASES

OF SELECTED COUNTRIES, THEIR RESPECTIVE PURPOSES, AND INCLUSION

OF EMERGING EXPOSURES

Jehremias M. Florante, MD1, and Maria Beatriz G. Villanueva, MD, MOH, PhD2 1Occupational Health Officer, 2Division Chief III

Occupational Safety and Health Center

Abstract

The Employees’ Compensation and State Insurance Fund or PD 626, as amended, was

created in 1974 to secure the workers and their dependents an adequate income benefit and

medical or related benefits in the event the worker suffered a work-related disability or death.

Thereafter, a List of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases was generated to serve as a

reference to government evaluators on whether certain illnesses that manifested on workers

can be compensated by the government or not, given other requirements. Several

amendments had already been made since it was first crafted. The current list comprises of

32 occupational and work-related diseases including 54 specific diseases some assigned to

the 32 listed. However, the Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation stipulated the

increased risk theory which has somehow expanded the List of Occupational and Work-

Related Diseases.

This study aimed to review published sources of information on compensable diseases

in the Philippines and other countries towards updating of the Philippine List of Occupational

and Work-Related Diseases. This was intended particularly to compare the Philippines’

existing list to the lists of selected countries on its purpose, system of determining work-

relatedness of the illness, and system of updating. This paper will also study how the

emerging exposures of the selected countries were included in the list.

Comparison on the respective list of occupational and work-related diseases among

selected countries, including the Philippines, were done and was found out that these are

being used for compensation purposes. Other countries like United Kingdom and Singapore

use their list for medical surveillance also. System of determining work-relatedness of

diseases could either be open (invoking increased risk theory) similar to Sweden or through a

list like France, Denmark, and New Zealand. Finland, United Kingdom, Singapore, and the

Philippines employ both systems. Updating their respective lists were done through technical

working groups involving experts (i.e., France, Finland, and Singapore) and/or other

stakeholders like insurance groups (i.e., France) or through tripartism (i.e., Denmark and

Sweden). The Philippines updates its list through technical working group involving experts

and through tripartism. United Kingdom and New Zealand, on the other hand, update their

list through ministerial councils. Emerging exposures were identified through various

strategies on reporting of occupational and work-related health issues like The Health and

Occupational Reporting (THOR) network of United Kingdom and Ireland, and mandatory

submission of reports from companies similar to Singapore and the Philippines. However,

there must be a good evidence of causal relationship to exposures in the workplace for

illnesses to be considered in the list.

Adapting the criteria set by international experts in coming up with an updated and

validated list is recommended. This is notwithstanding to another recommendation for a

of 14

possible partnership with stakeholders in coming up with diagnostic criteria of occupational

and work-related diseases which may be used both for compensation and in clinical practice

of physicians.

Lastly, it is recommended to strengthen and improve the data collection system on

occupational and work-related illnesses by looking at the possibility of making the companies

report to the social insurance systems directly, furnished the government’s enforcing

agencies.

of 14

Title

Review on the List of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases of Selected

Countries, their Respective Purposes, and Inclusion of Emerging Exposures

Lead Investigator

Jehremias M. Florante, MD

Occupational Health Officer

Health Control Division

Maria Beatriz G. Villanueva, MD, MOH, PhD

Division Chief III

Health Control Division

Funding Agency

Occupational Safety and Health Center

Introduction

The Employees’ Compensation and State Insurance Fund or Presidential Decree (PD)

626, as amended, was created in 1974 to secure the workers and their dependents an adequate

income benefit and medical or related benefits in the event the worker suffered a work-related

disability or death. Thereafter, a List of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases (Annex

“A” of the amended Implementing Rules and Regulations of PD 626 or the Amended Rules

on Employees’ Compensation) was generated to serve as a reference to government

evaluators on whether certain illnesses which manifested on workers can be compensated by

the government or not, given other requirements. Several amendments had already been

made since it was first crafted. In 1992, the Occupational Safety and Health Center (OSHC)

conducted a study which resulted to updating the list of then 29 compensable diseases. Those

added were musculoskeletal disorders (low back pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, etc.),

occupational eye diseases, post-traumatic disorder, occupational skin diseases (contact

dermatitis, irritant and allergic, chloracne, etc.), infectious diseases (tetanus, endemic viral

diseases, and parasitism), diseases caused by chemicals (benzoquinone, n-hexane, methyl-n-

butyl ketone), and chemical asphyxiants (carbon monoxide, hydrogen cyanide, and hydrogen

sulfide). Subsequently, OSHC reviewed employees’ compensation (EC) claims coming from

both the Social Security System (SSS) and the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS)

at various instances. The second review focused on determining the prevalence of work-

related illnesses and injuries filed with the present systems (OSHC, 1993). This study was

able to recommend for another review on the List of Occupational and Work-Related

Diseases and to standardize the diagnosis of the different compensable occupational and

work-related diseases using the 10th revision of the International Classification of Diseases

(ICD-10). The third and fourth review focused on the examination and analysis of the claims

filed by private and government workers on the different occupational and work-related

diseases approved by SSS and GSIS, respectively, on certain period of time (OSHC, 2009).

These reviews on EC claims were also used as bases in updating the list. The List of

Occupational and Work-Related Diseases was last amended in 2014 when changes on

occupational hearing loss were made.

of 14

The current list comprises of 32 occupational and work-related diseases including 54

specific illnesses some assigned to the 32 listed. However, Section 1(b) of Rule III of the

Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation stipulated the increased risk theory which was

further explained through Employees’ Compensation Commission’s (ECC) Board Resolution

No. 93-08-0068 approved last August 5, 1993. This, somehow, expanded the List of

Occupational and Work-Related Diseases. Increased risk, as stated in the resolution, would

mean any illness caused by or arising from factors integral of the job of the worker and the

working conditions but does not include aggravation of the worker’s pre-existing health

issues. The worker has the burden of proof of establishing the work relatedness of the

disease in order for him/her to invoke this rule. The required burden of proof the worker has

to produce consists of essential and sensible documents adequate enough to support a

conclusion on the work-relatedness of the disease. As such, certain parameters have to be

considered to strengthen this rule paving the way for possible update in the current List of

Occupational and Work-Related Diseases.

Objective/s

This study aimed to review published sources of information on compensable diseases

in the Philippines and other countries towards updating of the Philippine List of Occupational

and Work-Related Diseases.

This was intended particularly to compare the Philippines’ existing list to the lists of

selected countries on its purpose, system of determining work-relatedness of the illness, and

system of updating. This paper will also study how the emerging exposures of the selected

countries were included in the list.

Methodology

This study reviewed published sources of information on compensable diseases in the

Philippines and other countries available both online and on manuscripts. Literatures using

English language only were identified using online search engines and databases. Research

manuscripts available at the OSHC Library on reviews of EC claims from both Systems

(GSIS and SSS), ECC Board Resolutions concerning compensable diseases, and similar other

papers were included in the review.

Results

List of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases Among Countries

In 2007, Walters made a study comparing the compensation systems on occupational

illnesses and injuries among selected countries in Europe. Generally, most countries included

in the above-mentioned study (except for The Netherlands and Greece) have government

mandated schemes in providing benefits to their workers who suffered occupational or work-

related injuries and illnesses. These benefits may either be medical coverage or financial

assistance, or both. The Netherlands and Greece do not have a separate system of coverage

for their workers who suffered from occupational or work-related injuries and illnesses since

these health issues are included in their general health insurance system.

of 14

Table 1. Comparison among selected countries on list of occupational and work-related

diseases.1

Parameter France Denmark Finland Sweden UK1,2 New

Zealand3,4 Singapore5 Philippines6

Availability

of List X

Purpose of

List C C/P C/P C C/P/S C C/S C

System of

Determining

Work

Relatedness

of Disease

List List Mix Open Mix List Mix Mix

Updating of

List

G

M

I

G

W

E

G

M

G

W

E

G G G

M

G

W

E

M

Legend: C – Compensation

P – Guide to insurance providers

S – Medical surveillance

G – Government agency tasked to do the updating of the list

M – Medical experts

I – Insurance organizations

W – Labor organizations

E – Employers’ groups

Sources: 1 – Walters, 2007

2 – A. Money, et. al., 2014

3 – Driscoll, Wagstaffe, and Pearce, 2011

4 – ACC, 2008

5 – WSHC, 2011

6 – ECC Amended Rules on Employees’ Compensation

Table 1 shows the comparison on the respective list of occupational and work-related

diseases among selected countries, including the Philippines, and was found out that these are

being used for compensation purposes. Other countries like United Kingdom (UK) (Money,

et. al., 2015) and Singapore (WSHC, 2011) use their list for medical surveillance also. It was

also noted that Sweden has no list of occupational and work-related diseases among the

selected countries reviewed in this study. Thus, Sweden employs an open system in

determining occupational and work-related disease cases for compensation. Walters (2007)

defined open system as each EC claim on occupational and work-related disease as being

evaluated based on its own merits similar to the Philippines’ increase risk theory principle.

Meanwhile, France, Denmark, and New Zealand utilize a list system in determining

occupational and work-related disease cases for compensation. Walters (2007) defined list

system as having the cases of occupational and work-related diseases enumerated in a

government policy alongside with a criteria which may include the description of each case

(i.e., signs and symptoms, common pathological findings, etc.), the type of job or industry to

which the case is commonly attributed to, and the prescription period for the claim to be

processed. On the other hand, Finland, UK, Singapore, and the Philippines have their

respective list of compensable occupational and work-related diseases but still consider other

disease entities not listed which may be attributed to the nature of work of the worker and the

working conditions. These countries are examples of those which use a mix type of system

in determining occupational and work-related disease cases for compensation.

The delivery of compensation claims may be through the government or private

insurance organizations. As such, for countries like Denmark, Finland, and UK, their

of 14

respective list of occupational and work-related diseases serve as guide to either private or

government insurance organizations in their investigation of EC claims (Walters, 2007).

Updating the list vary among countries and may be done by technical working

committees or ministerial councils such in the case of UK and New Zealand. Money, et. al.

(2015) and the Accident Compensation Corporation (2008) did not elaborate the composition

of the said committee or council. Denmark and Sweden update their list through tripartism, a

group composed of government, labor and employers’ representatives (Walters, 2007). The

Philippines updates its list through technical working group involving experts and through

tripartism (ECC, 2014). The governments of Finland (Walters, 2007) and Singapore (WSHC,

2011) update their respective list with the assistance coming from the medical experts. Social

insurance fund providers are involved in the updating of the list of occupational and work-

related diseases in France. These updates are usually annexed to an existing law or

government regulation.

Emerging Occupational and Work-Related Diseases

The International Labour Organization (ILO) came up with a List of Occupational

Diseases in 1925 and is being updated since then. The occupational and work-related

diseases included in the list were proposed by different member-states and both international

employers’ and workers’ groups in a series of tripartite meetings (ILO, 2010). Kim and Kang

(2013) defined the list of occupational and work-related diseases as a collection of illnesses

caused by or brought about by the nature of work and the working conditions surrounding the

worker. The same list contains the description of each occupational and work-related disease

and becomes the foundation in the formulation of occupational safety and health (OSH)

policies and programs including its compensation system. The nature of occupational and

work-related disease makes other schools of thought define it as more legal than medical

(Leprince, 2007).

Table 2. List of occupational and work-related diseases of selected countries not included in the

ILO’s List of Occupational Diseases Recommendation No. 194 (R194).1

Category Agent/Condition Country

Chemical agents Phenol and its derivatives

Austria, Belgium, Finland, Romania,

Switzerland, France

Costa Rica, El Salvador

China, Turkey

Trichloroethylene

Tetrachloroethylene Denmark

Ortho-toluidine France

Chemotherapeutic drugs Finland

Aluminum Denmark

4-nitrodiphenyl Canada

Japan

Formaldehyde Denmark

Taiwan, Malaysia

Radon Denmark

Leather Ireland, Italy, United Kingdom

Saudi Arabia

of 14

Biological agents Rickettsia

United Kingdom, Russia, Portugal, Spain,

Austria

Mexico, Nicaragua

Saudi Arabia

Streptococcus

France, Portugal, Romania, United

Kingdom

Algeria, Angola

Mexico

Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong

New Zealand

Thermophilic actinomycetes

Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Italy, Romania,

United Kingdom

El Salvador, Mexico

Malaria

Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Ireland,

Finland, Belgium

Angola

Nicaragua, Mexico

Turkey, Philippines

Ameba

France, Hungary, Poland, Portugal,

Romania, Spain

Algeria, Angola

Nicaragua

Saudi Arabia, Turkey

Illnesses Onychodystrophy from humidity Romania

Colombia, Mexico

Dermatitis from sunlight Costa Rica

Ischemic heart disease from

increased strain and other physical

and neuropsychological burdens

Romania

Korea

Myocardial infarction

Dissection aneurysm

Subarachnoid haemorrhage

Cerebral haemorrhage

(All from psychological stress)

Korea, Japan, Taiwan2

Sudden death from psychological

stress Korea, Japan

Hypertension from

neuropsychological stress Romania

Essential hypertension Philippines3

Cardiovascular disorder from

psychological stress Korea2, Japan2, Taiwan2, Philippines

Neurosis from long-term direct

service to people

Russia, Romania

Mexico

Peptic ulcer from

psychological stress

Intestinal hernia from severe

straining

Philippines3

Congenital viral infection

Hydrocephalus

Microcephalus

Developmental retardation

Skin changes

Premature birth

Low birth weight

Denmark

Toxic autonomic neuropathy from

Esters Bulgaria

of 14

Vinyl chloride

Unsaturated aliphatic

hydrocarbons

Carbon monoxide

Vibration

Ophthalmia from electrical light China

Chemical burn of eyes China

Occupational cataracts

Austria, Bulgaria, Belgium, Denmark,

France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United

Kingdom

Algeria, Angola

Canada, Costa Rica, Colombia, El

Salvador, Mexico

Australia

Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Japan,

Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore,

Turkey

Snow blindness India

Chronic low back pain Bulgaria, Denmark

Chronic disorders of the lumbar

spine

France, Germany, Spain, Belgium

Philippines3

Herniated lumbar disc Italy

Philippines3

Intervertebral disc displacement Taiwan, Philippines3

Vertebral degeneration

Back pain

Cervical disc changes

Saudi Arabia

Source: 1 – Kim and Kang, 2013

2 – Park, et. al., 2012

3 – ECC, 2014

ILO R194 was established both for medical surveillance and compensation purposes

(ILO, 2010). Most countries based their own list of occupational and work-related diseases

from R194 (Driscoll, Wagstaffe, and Pearce, 2011). However, ILO itself did not limit

member-states from adding other occupational and work-related illnesses to their respective

list (ILO, 2010). Table 2 exhibits the list of occupational and work-related diseases of

selected countries not mentioned in ILO R194.

Kim and Kang (2013) reported that the current ILO list has expanded its coverage to

include occupational cancer, musculoskeletal diseases, and psychological illnesses. Despite

its comprehensiveness, other disease entities related to work were not included. The authors

inferred that the list produced by ILO cannot represent the EC system of each member-state.

This can be exemplified by Japan, Korea, and Taiwan wherein they provide compensation to

workers who suffered work-related cardiovascular diseases or cerebrovascular accidents

(Park, et. al., 2012). These disease entities are not included in ILO R194. These are cases

brought about by or are associated with overwork. Kim and Kang (2013) also included

Romania and Philippines as those countries who provide compensation to workers who

suffered work-related cardiovascular diseases or cerebrovascular accidents, particularly

ischemic heart disease from increased strain and other physical and neuropsychological

of 14

burdens and hypertension from neuropsychological stress for Romania, and cardiovascular

disease from psychological stress for the Philippines.

Mental and behavioral disorders such as neurosis suffered by those workers involved

in the frontline delivery of service are covered in Russia, Romania, and Mexico (Kim and

Kang, 2013).

Walters (2007), in his study, found out that the list of occupational and work-related

diseases among selected European countries is also lacking of good evidence of causal

relationship to exposures in the workplace. Driscoll, et. al. (2011) emphasized in their review

of New Zealand’s Schedule 2 the importance of being specific in developing a list of

occupational and work-related diseases. Example provided in this study is the substance

chromium and related compounds which are associated with lung cancer, chronic renal

failure, dermatitis, respiratory tract irritation, among others (ATSDR, 2012). The study

emphasized that these disease entities may also be caused by other substances aside from

chromium and its related compounds. Hence, it was suggested that the occupational and

work-related disease be presented followed by the associated exposures or occupation which

the disease is commonly attributed to.

Further, three criteria were proposed by Driscoll, et. al. (2011) to make sure that lists

contain occupational and work-related diseases with good evidence of causal relationship to

exposures in the workplace

1. Strong scientific evidence of a causal link between the disease and the

exposure;

2. Clear diagnostic criteria for occupational and work-related diseases; and

3. Large proportion of cases.

Singapore, on the other hand, came up with its own Workplace Safety and Health

Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Occupational Diseases (2011) which details the

diagnoses and reporting of occupational diseases in their country which may be useful in

dealing with compensation claims of its workers. The same guidelines mentioned the clinical

presentation of the illness, any available predisposing factor, differential diagnosis, and

management. Included in these guidelines is the presence of sections on Diagnostic Criteria

on Work-Relatedness and on Investigation to Establish Work-Relatedness.

of 14

Reporting of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases

A good system on recording and reporting of occupational and work-related illnesses

and injuries is very important to a country to gain insight on the state of its OSH. Also, the

system would help identify which industries are at most risk and possible cases of emerging

health issues (WSHC, 2011).

Table 3. Selected countries with system on reporting of occupational and work-related diseases

Country Reporting System

United Kingdom1

The Health and Occupational Reporting (THOR) network

Reports from physicians submitting to government institutions enforcing

OSH and to social insurance system

Health statistics

Death Certificates and reports from coroner’s office

Ireland2

The Health and Occupational Reporting (THOR) network

Reports from physicians and employers submitting to government

institutions enforcing occupational safety and health and to social

insurance system

Employee surveys

Health statistics

Death Certificates and reports from coroner’s office

Singapore3

Reports from physicians to the Ministry of Manpower on occupational

diseases as required by Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Act

Reports from employers to the Ministry of Manpower on workers who

contracted occupational and work-related illness and injury as mandated

by Work Injury Compensation Act (WICA)

Philippines

Periodic submissions of reportorial requirements to Department of Labor

and Employment mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health

Standards (OSHS), as amended

Employee’s Compensation claims

Nationwide sampling survey, i.e., Integrated Survey on Labor and

Employment (ISLE) of the Philippine Statistics Authority

Researches and case studies

Sources: 1 – Money, et. al., 2015

2 – Drummond, 2007

3 – WSHC, 2011

The system on reporting of occupational and work-related diseases of UK, Ireland,

Singapore, and the Philippines, as shown in Table 3, reflect where the data on workplace

health concerns can be collected. Common among these four countries is that reports on

occupational and work-related illnesses are submitted to the government agencies enforcing

OSH. UK, Ireland, and the Philippines also rely on health statistics and surveys aside from

the periodic reportorial submissions to the government.

In 2004, Leigh and Robbins made a review on the coverage and costs of occupational

diseases and workers’ compensation to understand the extent of the EC coverage of diseases

using epidemiological data and compensation data of the workers in the US. Based on their

review, health effects, and even death, brought about by the workers’ previous jobs affect

them after retirement due to the latency of occupational diseases. Among these diseases

include job-related cancers, chronic respiratory diseases, and circulatory diseases. Some of

which are not covered by EC system in some states. This non-coverage represented

significant budgetary challenge to the affected worker and his/her family, and to both the

private and government health insurance systems.

of 14

On the other hand, Ireland adapted UK’s The Health and Occupational Reporting

(THOR) network which is a data collection system for occupational disease prevention

(Money, 2015). The network was observed to be an ideal system in the analysis of trends and

identification of emerging health issues in the workplace. The network also provides

validated information on the incidence of occupational and work-related illnesses

(Drummond, 2007).

Discussion

The Philippines employs a mix type of system in determining occupational and work-

related disease cases for compensation. Annex “A” of the Amended Rules on Employees’

Compensation is the List of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases which is updated as the

need arises through tripartism after consultation with experts as provided by Section 3

(Authority of the Commission), Rule III (Compensability) of the same regulations. However,

an occupational and work-related disease may still be compensated even if the said illness is

not included in the list by invoking the increased risk theory as previously mentioned in the

Introduction. The worker will then be asked to show proof of work relatedness of the disease

in order to effect this rule. Belgium, Italy, and Luxembourg also use the same principle in

determining work-relatedness of the disease in order for it to be compensated (Walters,

2007).

Sweden’s open system in determining occupational and work-related illnesses for

compensation is worth studying especially on how they arrive to the compensability of the

illness of a worker. However, Walters (2007) did not specify if their claimants have to prove

that they have the occupational disease and they have evidences to support the link of their of

job to the development of the disease as in the case of the Philippines or the burden of proof

rests on the physicians attending to the worker similar to Singapore. This is substantial in the

resolution of EC cases.

Conformity to the criteria set by Driscoll, et. al. (2011) is essential in coming up with

a validated list of occupational and work-related diseases. Singapore’s Workplace Safety and

Health Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Occupational Diseases (2011) presents a

good framework as it has sections on Diagnostic Criteria on Work-Relatedness and on

Investigation to Establish Work-Relatedness which will aid our occupational health

physicians and medical insurance evaluators in identifying whether the case can be

considered as occupational or work-related or not. The guidelines will help facilitate a

speedy resolution of compensation cases.

As in Singapore’s guidelines, Drummond (2007) outlined where reports on

occupational and work-related illnesses would come from in Ireland as illustrated in Table 3.

Moreover, Drummond (2007) also mentioned that reports being submitted to their social

insurance system have the highest compliance rate as compared to reports being submitted by

the employers and/or physicians to government institutions with mandate to enforce OSH.

Something that Philippines may look into to ensure a better picture on the state of OSH in the

country.

It is also noteworthy to mention that the THOR network of Ireland, which is a

duplicate from UK’s THOR, is also a good source of validated data on occupational and

work-related health issues (Drummond, 2007). Money, et. al. (2014) highlighted the viability

of this system in the improvement of medical surveillance in companies and in the reporting

of 14

of occupational and work-related illnesses in UK, Northern Ireland, and Republic of Ireland.

The network involves not only occupational health physicians but also from different

specialties that handle occupational and work-related diseases. Though not available in the

Philippines but can be adapted to improve the country’s recording and notification system on

occupational health issues in the workplace. The system can also be a tool for recognizing

emerging health issues in the workplace as done in other countries (Drummond, 2007).

With a robust system in recording and reporting of occupational and work-related

illnesses, a validated List of Occupational and Work-Related Diseases, and reliable

diagnostic criteria on occupational diseases, decision-making will be prompt and preventive

strategies will improve as evidenced by Drummond (2007) and Driscoll, et. al. (2011).

Conclusions

Comparison on the respective list of occupational and work-related diseases among

selected countries, including the Philippines, were done and was found out that these are

being used for compensation purposes. Other countries like UK and Singapore use their list

for medical surveillance also. The system of determining work-relatedness of diseases could

either be open similar to Sweden or through a list like France, Denmark, and New Zealand.

Finland, UK, Singapore, and the Philippines employ both systems. Updating their respective

lists were done through technical working groups involving experts (i.e., France, Finland, and

Singapore) and/or other stakeholders like insurance groups (i.e., France) or through tripartism

(i.e., Denmark and Sweden). The Philippines updates its list through technical working

group involving experts and through tripartism. UK and New Zealand, on the other hand,

update their list through ministerial councils.

Diagnostic criteria of occupational and work-related diseases can be useful to the

occupational health physicians and medical insurance evaluators in assessing the work-

relatedness of illnesses in the workplace. This tool will speed up the processes involved in

the delivery of EC.

Emerging exposures were identified through various strategies on reporting of

occupational and work-related health issues like THOR network of UK and Ireland, and

mandatory submission of reports from companies similar to Singapore and the Philippines.

However, there must be a good evidence of causal relationship to exposures in the workplace

for illnesses to be considered in the list.

Recommendation/s

Presidential Decree 626, as amended, was crafted in 1974 to assure the workers and

their dependents of a fair and decent income benefit and medical or related benefits in cases

workers suffer work-related illnesses, injuries, or death. The List of Occupational and Work-

Related Diseases was later created and annexed to the Amended Rules on Employees’

Compensation to serve as a guide to government evaluators on the work-relatedness of the

disease cases filed by the workers for EC benefit claim. Adapting the criteria set by

international experts in coming up with an updated and validated list is recommended. This

is notwithstanding to another recommendation for a possible partnership with stakeholders in

coming up with diagnostic criteria of occupational and work-related diseases which may be

used both for compensation and in clinical practice of physicians.

of 14

Lastly, it is recommended to strengthen and improve the data collection system on

occupational and work-related illnesses by looking at the possibility of making the companies

report to the social insurance systems directly, furnished the government’s enforcing

agencies.

References:

1. Employees’ Compensation Commission. 2013. The Employee’s Compensation and State

Insurance Fund (Presidential Decree No. 626, as amended). Makati City.

2. Employees’ Compensation Commission. 2014. Amended Rules on Employees’

Compensation. Makati City.

3. Employees’ Compensation Commission. 2014. ECC Circulars and Board Resolutions

on Employees’ Compensation. Makati City.

4. Occupational Safety and Health Center. 1992. Updating the List of ECC Compensable

Diseases.

5. Occupational Safety and Health Center. 1993. Review of Employees’ Compensation

Claims.

6. Occupational Safety and Health Center. 2009. Database of workers’ compensation

claims filed with the Social Security System, 1997 – 2000, Compendium of OSHC

Studies: 2003 – 2008.

7. Occupational Safety and Health Center (unpublished). Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses

of Public Workers: A Review of Employees’ Compensation Claims from GSIS, 2010-2012.

8. David Walters. 2007. An International Comparison of Occupational Disease and Injury

Compensation Schemes (Research Report Industrial Injuries Advisory Council).

Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data

/file/330347/InternationalComparisonsReport.pdf.

9. A. Money, et. al. 2015. Work-related ill-health: Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland,

Great Britain 2005-2012, Occupational Medicine, 2015; 65:15-21. DOI:

10.1093/occmed/kqu137.

10. Tim Driscoll, Mark Wagstaffe, and Neil Pearce. 2011. Developing a List of

Compensable Occupational Diseases: Principles and Issues, The Open Occupational

Health and Safety Journal, 3, pp. 65-72.

11. Accident Compensation Corporation. 2008. Updating the Schedule 2: list of

occupational diseases. New Zealand: ACC Operations Group. Retrieved from

http://www.acc.co.nz/PRD_EXT_CSMP/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=1167&dD

ocName=PRD_CTRB075763&allowInterrupt=1.

12. Workplace Safety and Health Council. 2011. Workplace Safety and Health Guidelines:

Diagnosis and Management of Occupational Diseases. Retrieved from

of 14

https://www.wshc.sg/files/wshc/upload/infostop/attachments/2015/IS2015041600000003

20/WSH_Guidelines_Occupational_Diseases.pdf.

13. International Labour Organization. 2010. ILO List of Occupational Diseases (Revised

2010). Switzerland: Programme on Safety and Health at Work and the Environment

(SafeWork).

14. Eun-A Kim and Seong-Kyu Kang. 2013. Historical review of the List of Occupational

Diseases recommended by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Annals of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 25:14. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.

nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3923370/pdf/2052-4374-25-14.pdf.

15. Annie Leprince, 2007. The Importance of Training: Occupational Diseases, Training

Needs, Target Groups. ISSA Conference, Kribi, Cameroon, 13-15 March 2007.

Retrieved from http://www.issa.int/pdf/kribi07/2leprince.pdf.

16. Jungsun Park, et. al. 2012. A Comparison of the Recognition of Overwork-related

Cardiovascular Disease in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan, Industrial Health, 50, pp. 17-23.

17. US Department of Health and Human Services. 2012. Toxicological Profile for

Chromium. Atlanta. Retrieved from https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp7.pdf.

18. Anne Drummond. 2007. A Review of the Occupational Diseases Reporting System in the

Republic of Ireland. Ireland: Health and Safety Authority. Retrieved from

http://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Research_Publications/A_

Review_of_the_Occupational_Diseases_Reporting_System_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland.

pdf.

19. J. Paul Leigh and John A. Robbins. 2004. Occupational Disease and Workers’

Compensation: Coverage, Costs, and Consequences, The Milbank Quarterly, 82:4, pp.

689-721. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2690178/pdf/

milq0082-0689.pdf.

REVIEW ON THE LIST OF OCCUPATIONAL AND WORK-RELATED ...oshc.dole.gov.ph/images/documents/Research...

Documents

Transcript of REVIEW ON THE LIST OF OCCUPATIONAL AND WORK-RELATED ...oshc.dole.gov.ph/images/documents/Research...