Echoing assertions made by a workers compensation insurance company, a March 23 editorial in The Pueblo Chieftain urged state lawmakers to vote against a bill that would make it easier for firefighters diagnosed with suspected job-related cancer to collect medical costs under the state's workers compensation program. However, while parroting several dubious or misleading claims that Rocky Mountain News columnist Peter Blake had advanced in a March 10 column similarly critical of the bill -- which also mirrored arguments made by the insurer, Pinnacol Assurance -- the Chieftain ignored facts that contradicted its argument. Among them were some the bill's sponsor, Rep. Mike Cerbo (D-Denver), raised in a March 22 News op-ed piece.

As the News reported on February 2, “Firefighters say they can't get workers compensation for cancer, even though studies show they are exposed to carcinogenic fumes during routine fires.” The article further reported:

With cancer rates far higher than among police officers and the general population, they're urging a shift in state law that would relieve them of the burden of proving specific fires caused certain cancers. House Bill 1008, sponsored by Mike Cerbo, D-Denver, would shift the responsibility to require employers or insurance companies to prove the disease was not work-related.

In his column, “Can passing bad bills help GOP?” Blake called House Bill 1008 “a singularly cynical proposal the firefighters union decided to push once the Democrats took over the entire Statehouse. In order to get more cancer cases covered by workers comp, they're trying to reverse the burden of proof.” Blake further stated:

Under current law, workers comp will cover the cost of cancer treatment, but only if the employee can demonstrate that the cause is work-related. That's reasonable. Nobody really knows what causes cancer and the only studies linking cancer to firefighting are funded by the firefighters.

But HB 1008 says that most cancers afflicting firefighters after five years on the job “shall be presumed to result” from their employment.

Their employers would have to show “by clear and convincing medical evidence” that the cancer was not job-related.

Of course the bill is roundly detested by those who would have to pay higher workers comp premiums, namely the municipalities and special districts that employ firefighters. Even those in volunteer departments would be covered.

Echoing Blake's column, the Chieftain editorialized that “the firefighters' union is trying to turn the law on its head”:

House Bill 1008, currently under consideration in the Legislature, says that most cancers that afflict firefighters after five years on the job “shall be presumed to result” from their employment. Employers would be forced to show “by preponderance” of the medical evidence that the cancer was not job-related -- a relatively difficult thing to do.

[...]

But little is known about what causes cancer. According to the American Cancer Society, one in two men will develop cancer over the course of his lifetime. According to the same data, about 20 percent of all men will develop one of the cancers identified in HB1008.

The bill would drive up workers comp premiums for cities and other districts employing firefighters. Even volunteer firefighters would be covered under the measure.

Guess who gets to pay? Taxpayers, that's who.

This bill is an unfunded mandate. And it treats one class of workers differently from all others.

An undated industry memo voicing opposition to the bill made two of the same points central to Blake's and the Chieftain's arguments. Pinnacol Assurance, which identifies itself as “the largest workers' compensation insurance company in Colorado,” maintained in the memo sent to "[m]embers of the Colorado House of Representatives" that "[w]e simply do not know what causes most cancers." Further, it warned that if HB 1008 becomes law, "[t]here will be a large cost impact to cities, counties and special districts which have volunteer firefighters." (The Chieftain editorial made no reference to Pinnacol, and Blake's column mentioned only that the company's lobbyists had convinced two Democrats to vote against the bill.)

However, the bill's fiscal note, prepared by the nonpartisan Colorado Legislative Council (CLC), states, “Since work-related cancer is already compensable under state law, few if any new workers' compensation claims are anticipated to be filed or paid.” The CLC further concluded that HB 1008 “will not significantly increase or decrease state revenue or expenditures.” Also:

[T]he bill will not impact disability benefits paid by the Firefighters and Police Pension Fund (FPPF) because the fund already pays for disability caused by cancer, regardless of whether or not the accident was work-related. However, if more firefighters with cancer were to receive workers' compensation payments, the amount of workers' compensation benefits due would decrease because these benefits are offset by the amount of FPPF benefits paid.

Likewise, as Cerbo pointed out in his “Speakout” op-ed in the News, “While the impact to the medical treatment of sick firefighters is huge, the fiscal impact is miniscule [sic]”:

In the first 4 years after passing presumptive cancer legislation in Nevada, the state had a total of three claims. The state of Oklahoma had 22 claims paid in the 6 years after passing presumptive legislation, an average of less than 4 claims per year. The average cost per claim was $10,409.00 for a state of 12,420 firefighters. This means that it about $3.00 per year per firefighter to pay for the coverage of cancer in his/her profession statewide.

The Chieftain and News also omitted findings of scientific research addressing the claim that “little is known about what causes cancer.” Cerbo wrote, "[E]veryone knows that many substances have been identified as carcinogens. These include the many cancer-causing chemicals to which firefighters are repeatedly exposed":

Firefighters have a higher incidence of contracting cancer than the general population. Numerous nationally published and accredited studies show that firefighters are exposed to a variety of known carcinogens, as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, during their work. Practically every emergency situation encountered by a firefighter has the potential for exposure to carcinogenic agents such as benzene.

Despite this, firefighters never receive Workers Compensation for job-related cancer.

Indeed, a 2006 study by the University of Cincinnati -- described as “the largest comprehensive study to date investigating cancer risk associated with working as a firefighter” -- found that “firefighters are significantly more likely to develop four different types of cancer than workers in other fields.” According to the summary posted on the university's website:

[T]he protective equipment firefighters have used in the past didn't do a good job in protecting them against cancer-causing agents they encounter in their profession, the researchers say.

The researchers found, for example, that firefighters are twice as likely to develop testicular cancer and have significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and prostate cancer than non-firefighters. The researchers also confirmed previous findings that firefighters are at greater risk for multiple myeloma.

-- J.S.W.