Healthy People 2000 Consortium Meeting November 7, 1997 Summary of Breakout Group Discussion Concerning Priority Area 10: Occupational Safety and Health

I. Overall 2010 Framework

• Workgroup indicated that given the vision statement, "Vision of 2010: Healthy People in Healthy Communities," the plan does not appear to incorporate enough Federal interdepartmental partnership. For instance, the plan should envision DHHS actively working with HUD, Education, Transportation, EPA, DOE, and DOL to maximize both use of resources and impact. This will help emphasize the serious intent of the Federal Government to help communities implement prevention programs at the local level. A more holistic approach is needed.
• Schematic Figure (fan on page 14; "Developing Objectives for HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010"):
• Workgroup suggested that if the fan is used, that the Special Populations fan section (now to the right side of the fan) would be better expressed as an arch at the top of the shaded section across all of the fan spokes. This would emphasize the importance to integrating goals for special populations into all objectives.
• The group commented that the fan schematic is a step in the right direction (compared to the house for HP 2000), however, it was suggested that a more dynamic figure without lines separating each section would be better. The group felt that the categories might artificially limit our efforts by imposing primary/secondary classifications instead of facilitating our ability to look at the big picture and dynamic relationships. A circle, or three-dimensional donut, was suggested as a better plan.
  
  Note: There was strong feeling that the word "safety" should not be left out on the fan label for objective 10. Occupational health, while fitting neatly into the fan, is not enough.
• The group recommended replacing the term "enabling goals" with "strategies." They viewed the term "enabling goals" as confusing, rather than helpful. They also noted that the word enabling has too many negative connotations.
• The goal of "eliminating" rather than "reducing" disparities in health status was fully supported by the group.

II. Occupational Safety and Health Objectives

• Workgroup endorsed the publication of a separate document for Occupational Safety and Health Objectives. They believe this will help get the objectives out to the occupational safety and health community--in addition to traditional CDC public health partners at the State and local levels of government. The group believed there likely would be interest by NIOSH partners in funding a separate document.
• Workgroup suggested that we should check the consistency of goals from section to section and look for opportunities missed to cover OSH-related needs (for instance, cancer and heart disease screening in the workplace is not covered). The group suggested that corporate America (and the Washington Business Group on Health) might be interested in working with us on these crosscutting issues. Another topic mentioned was prenatal care at work.
• Developmental goals were considered important. Data are needed on the costs associated with work-related illness and injury. This is a relatively new area of emphasis with great potential for advancing OSH prevention messages.
• The group recommended exploring opportunities to capture data that may be available through OSHA and BLS. What opportunities are available for improving collection from existing surveys, or OSHA 200 reports? How could we improve the quality of the input?
• The workgroup suggested that rather than reporting data by industry, CDC should consider reporting data by hazard (e.g., chemical, mechanical, biological). It was viewed that current industry categories are not representing the whole working population. For instance, current categories do not reflect the toll of cumulative trauma on all workers (blue and white collar). Also, current categories do not reflect hazards to health care workers. For instance, persons who work at the local medical center are exposed to every type of work hazard.
• The group agreed that the goal for hearing loss should be prevention of noise-induced hearing loss, rather than reducing exposures. On the subject of hearing loss, there was discussion of the need for reporting consistency—and the need for consistency between recommendations and regulations.
• The group suggested that we might need a goal for developing Reporting Standards and a goal for Work-relatedness Coding (on medical billing, data registries, etc.).

III. Reporting Back to Conference Participants

• The workgroup recommended that everyone participating in conference workgroups on November 7 be copied on what is reported by each workgroup.

Participants

Linda Bailey, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Janice Klink, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Sally L. Lusk, University of Michigan, Occupational Health Nursing
Allen Wicken, American Physical Therapy Association