Thousands of Florida workers, including people on the front lines battling the coronavirus pandemic, say they have gotten infected with COVID-19.
But state numbers show that insurers have refused to pay nearly half of the workers’ compensation insurance claims filed by first responders, health care professionals and other workers.
Data collected by Chief Financial Officer Jimmy Patronis’ office show nearly 12,000 workers’ compensation claims had been filed as of July 31, but more than 43 percent of “indemnity” claims were denied by insurers.
The numbers show that most of the denials, or about 62 percent, were made by private insurers that provide coverage to Florida’s employers.
The denials have come during a period where COVID-19 has shattered the state’s economy, and led to about 3.8 million people seeking unemployment benefits. While the economy largely shut down this spring, “essential” services such as hospitals, health care clinics and grocery and home-improvement stores remained open.
Not surprisingly, first responders and health care workers have filed the most workers’ compensation indemnity claims related to COVID-19. Combined, the professions accounted for more than 65 percent of the claims as of July 31. That included 4,345 protective service workers filing claims, along with 3,432 health care workers.
Another 2,897 claims were filed by people classified as service workers, a category that includes a wide variety of jobs such as working at restaurants, hotels, grocery stores and other retailers.
The state also tracks claims by type of insurer: private insurance companies, which typically write policies for a variety of businesses; private self-insured trust funds, which large private employers can use to insure their risks; and government self-insured trust funds, which insure risks of government agencies.
Of the 11,872 indemnity claims filed as of July 31, 5,527 were filed with private insurance companies. Those insurers denied, or partially denied, about 55 percent of the claims. Meanwhile private self-insured funds and government self-insured funds denied or partially denied 30 percent and 31 percent of claims, respectively.
In all, 5,144 claims had been completely denied as of July 31, while 32 claims had been partially denied, according to the report.
“No one should be shocked by this data,” said Bill Herrle, executive director of the National Federation of Independent Business in Florida.
Herrle said NFIB believes that private businesses should be held to a different standard when it comes to workers’ compensation benefits than public agencies that employ many of the first responders.
“We think there is a very ripe policy question on the responsibilities of the private sector versus the public sector, who clearly bears a higher responsibility for the front-line workers,” said Herrle, whose organization represents small businesses.
Business organizations have been clamoring for action by the Legislature or Gov. Ron DeSantis on liability issues related to the pandemic, but Republican legislative leaders have rejected calls for a special session and DeSantis has refused to act on requests for liability waivers.
Workers’ compensation is a no-fault system meant to protect workers and employers. It is supposed to provide workers who are injured on the job access to medical benefits they need to be made whole.
The report put out by the state doesn’t include information on what are known as medical-only claims. Instead, it focuses on indemnity claims, which involve workers who are injured for at least eight days and who also are eligible to recoup lost wages.
In exchange for providing those benefits, employers generally cannot be sued in court for causing injuries. While the system is supposed to be self-executing, injured workers hire attorneys when there are disputes over the amounts of benefits they should receive.
Miami-Dade County leads the state in the number of COVID-19 infections and in workers’ compensation claims. It accounted for 34 percent of the indemnity claims filed as of July 31.
In addition to having claims information, the report also contains data on indemnity claims paid.
Insurance companies, private self-insurance trust funds and government self-insured funds had paid $4.1 million on the 6,670 claims that had been closed, a total that includes claims that were denied.
Payments of nearly $9 million had been made by insurance carriers on the 5,202 claims that remained open, according to the data, which is from information sent to the state Division of Workers’ Compensation that includes codes for causes of injury and nature of injuries and allows for descriptions of workplace accidents.
Workers’ compensation indemnity claims had been filed in every county, with the exception of DeSoto County, according to the data. Also, 837 claims were filed with no county indicated.
The coronavirus pandemic has businesses and homeowners alike seeking out anything that might make shared spaces feel safer and more sanitary. That has some consumers and product manufacturers turning to ultraviolet, or UV light as a potential solution — specifically, a type of UV light called UVC, which has extra-short wavelengths and enough energy to alter the DNA and RNA of organic cells, which stops them from reproducing.
UVC light has a long history as a proven disinfectant at places like hospitals and laboratories, and businesses including airlines, hotels and retail spaces have been relying on the invisible light more than ever in 2020. The pandemic has also produced a flood of cheap, unregulated, consumer-facing devices for use in the home, including handheld UVC wands that look like lightsabers.
Devices like those are nothing new, but the pandemic-borne surge of interest in them is raising alarms, because UVC light is a known carcinogen, and even a few moments of direct exposure can be hazardous to the eyes and skin.
Now, as research into UVC and the coronavirus continues, regulators, industry leaders and safety science professionals are urging caution. Here’s what you need to know — the science, the safety risks and everything experts say you should take into consideration before bringing any UVC-powered light source into your home.
UVC’s time to shine?
Ultraviolet light is invisible electromagnetic radiation that falls between 180 and 400 nanometers in wavelength. UVC light is ultraviolet light that falls specifically between 180 and 280 nanometers — the shortest, most intense part of the ultraviolet light spectrum. Unlike less intense UVA and UVB light, which will burn your skin if you sit out in the sun too long, UVC light can burn skin within seconds. Natural UVC light from the sun is completely absorbed by the Earth’s atmosphere.
Man-made UVC light is just as intense, and just as good at ionizing organic molecules and altering their DNA and RNA. For years, scientists and medical professionals have used the invisible light as a natural disinfectant against bacteria and viruses, including the coronaviruses that cause illnesses like SARS and MERS. While scientists are still working to determine the full efficacy of UVC light against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, the early indications are promising — enough so that the FDA issued guidance in March that it “does not plan to object” to any previously cleared sterilization or disinfectant devices updating their marketing to indicate that they combat COVID-19.
“Because disinfection kills most recognized pathogenic microorganisms, it can generally be inferred that sterilization and disinfection should minimize the viability of SARS-CoV-2 on surfaces and in the air in confined spaces,” the FDA wrote. That gave manufacturers a green light to begin marketing potential COVID killers.
Now, interest in UVC light is surging. Signify, formerly Philips Lighting, which has been producing UVC lighting for more than 35 years, tells CNET that interest in the lights has spiked enough to justify an eight-fold increase in production since the start of the pandemic. In Kansas, Digital Aerolus developed a UVC drone that can fly through contaminated spaces disinfecting everything it comes across. Here in Kentucky, Big Ass Fans recently released a UVC ceiling fan designed to disinfect air as it circulates throughout the room.
Those are all high-end, commercial-grade products — but interest in cheaper, simpler UVC products that people can bring into their homes is on the rise, too. That’s where safety experts are beginning to sound the alarms.
UL’s reference guide for UVC devices notes the “serious risks” associated with UVC exposure. Underwriters Laboratories
Unseen dangers
Run a quick search for “UVC” on Amazon or at Walmart and you’ll find page upon page of products that promise to sterilize your home. With names like “Germ Guardian,” “Bio Shield” and “The Germ Reaper,” most claim to kill 99.9% of viruses and other pathogens they come into contact with.
“Under the pandemic, we’ve seen a great increase in the interest around UV germicidal-type devices, including those that are now more consumer-facing,” says Todd Straka, global industry director of lighting at Underwriters Laboratories, where UVC products are tested for safety certification. “These can be very dangerous if you don’t use them properly.”
Straka and other safety science experts at UL recently teamed with the National Electrical Manufacturers Association and the American Lighting Association to address these concerns in a two-page position paper (PDF) outlining the potential risks of using uncertified UVC devices. Straka calls the situation “a major safety issue,” and his counterparts at NEMA and the ALA agree.
“We know that UVC is a proven way to help eliminate dangerous bacteria and viruses in water, air and on surfaces,” says Karen Willis, NEMA’s industry director for lighting systems. “Nevertheless, in the midst of COVID-19, we are concerned about proliferation of UVC disinfecting devices being sold with uncertain safety features and incomplete operating instructions.”
“UVC lamps used for disinfection purposes may pose potential health and safety risks depending on the UVC wavelength, dose, and duration of radiation exposure,” the guidance reads. “The risk may increase if the unit is not installed properly or used by untrained individuals.”
One potential source of risk is older, mercury-based UVC lamps, as well as lamps that emit ozone, which can be toxic to the lungs — but newer, UVC LED lamps are a potential hazard, as well. The biggest concern, UL’s experts say, are uncontained devices like light wands that could potentially expose a user’s eyes or skin to the invisible UVC light at close range, causing damage. UL is unwilling to certify wands like those due to the high risk in an uncontrolled home setting.
This UVC wand is sold by Walmart for $20. The listing makes no mention of the potential hazard UV light poses to eyes and skin. Akaso Tech
“This is a hazard you can’t see,” explains Pamela Gwynn, principal engineer for UL’s Life and Health Sciences related to medical equipment. “They’re not toys. They’re not instantaneous. There has to be some time for the device to be in place for it to be able to do the work it’s intended to.
“The damage that’s being done is also not instantaneous,” Gwynn adds. “So it may take several days before you realize you’ve damaged your eyes or caused burns on your skin.”
Many of the products currently being sold seem to downplay that risk, or ignore it altogether. One of the sponsored products at the top of Amazon’s search ranks is a UVC light wand from a company headquartered in Shenzhen, China called 59S. The product features a child safety lock and an auto-shutoff feature if the wand isn’t shining downward, but a misleading chart at the top of the product listing comparing the wand’s LEDs to other types of UV lamps wrongly claims that the light comes with no side effects. You have to scan the fine print in one of the product photos to find a warning about exposure to the eyes and skin — it isn’t printed anywhere else in the listing, though it does say you should wear protective goggles. And, as an observant CNET reader pointed out, Amazon has it categorized under “Hand Sanitizers.”
Another wand listed on Walmart features no child lock or auto-shutoff at all, and the listing never warns of any hazard to the eyes or skin — though it does boast of lights that are twice as intense as a previous model. There’s no mention of safety certification other than 3C certification via Chinese regulators, either.
The manufacturer does make sure to specify that the wand is certified waterproof.
“Can be put in the fish tank,” the listing notes.
A Walmart spokesperson provided the following statement after we first published this story:
“Walmart is committed to providing safe and compliant products to our customers. One way we do this is by requiring our suppliers to comply with all rules and regulations applicable to the products they sell, whether those items are sold in stores, online, or on our third-party marketplace. If Walmart learns that a supplier is providing non-compliant items, those items are promptly removed from sale. We are actively reviewing this matter and appreciate you bringing it to our attention.”
Amazon didn’t respond to a request for comment, though its product listings note that the company assumes no liability for inaccuracies or misstatements about products.
Big Ass Fans expects final results by the end of August from lab-based trials exploring the efficacy of fan-mounted UVC lights against COVID-19. Big Ass Fans
Caution light
In an age when Clorox wipes are a precious commodity, sanitizing UVC light might seem like a promising alternative. But experts urge caution for anyone tempted to bring the tech into their home.
“UL has made a conscious decision not to certify the consumer-facing, portable, handheld wand-type devices due to the inability to manage the risks,” Straka tells CNET.
“What we would suggest is definitely looking at products that do have a safety certification from a nationally recognized testing laboratory, such as UL,” Straka adds. “There are installers and commercial-grade products out there that do have a safety certification and which can be installed and used very safely.”
In the meantime, research continues into the potential efficacy of UVC light against the virus that causes COVID-19. Some companies that sell UVC products, like Signify and Big Ass Fans, are putting those products to the test at third-party research labs to verify effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2. Researchers at Boston University found that Signify’s wall-mounted UVC lights killed up to 99% of the virus within seconds; the company is now broadening its portfolio of UVC luminaries for commercial environments. Similar tests for the Haiku UVC ceiling fan from Big Ass Fans are expected to produce final results by the end of August.
Elsewhere, one recent study out of Columbia University looked at “far-UVC” light that shines at a less intense wavelength — still strong enough to zap viruses, but potentially incapable of penetrating eye and skin tissue.
Again, UL urges caution.
“At this point, though there are some promising studies, it’s not yet widely determined that [far-UVC light] is indeed safe,” says Gwynn. “It’s still just considered UV, and there’s no exception that [the far-UVC] wavelength is not a concern.”
“There are emerging studies to understand the effectiveness of UVC against COVID-19,” Straka adds, “but in terms of research, there’s a lot still pending on that. So I would caution consumers … if they’re seeing really robust claims about efficacy, to keep in mind that that is still very much in the works.”
Hydroxychloroquine could still prevent COVID-19 and save tens of thousands of lives around the world, say leading scientific researchers. While it doesn’t work in treatment of hospitalised patients, it could still prevent infections. However, fraudulent data, unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns together with intense politicisation and negative publicity may stop COPCOV, the only large, global clinical trial testing hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 prevention, from ever finding out.
COPCOV is a double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled global study aiming to enrol 40,000 healthcare workers to determine if hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine can prevent COVID-19 that is led by the University of Oxford and the Wellcome supported Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Bangkok.
“There is no guarantee that we’ll soon have a widely available vaccine against COVID-19. Despite all the publicity, we still do not know if hydroxychloroquine can prevent COVID-19, but it’s really important that we find out, one way or the other. The only way to do this is to enrol a large number of participants in randomised controlled trials like COPCOV,” said Sir Jeremy Farrar, Director of the Wellcome Trust.
Previous prevention studies were too small to show conclusive evidence whether hydroxychloroquine works or not as a preventive.
“We really don’t know if hydroxychloroquine works or not in prevention or very early treatment. That question remains unanswered. The benefits found in small post-exposure treatment trials although modest could be very valuable if they were confirmed,” said Dr Will Schilling, Co-Principal Investigator of Oxford-led COPCOV clinical trial.
Early use of hydroxychloroquine could be critical.
“By the time patients are admitted to hospital virus multiplication is well past its peak and inflammation in the lungs and other complications may prove lethal. At this stage the steroid dexamethasone, which reduces inflammation, saves lives but the antivirals hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine do not,” explained MORU Director Prof Nick Day.
“However, that does not rule out that they could be effective much earlier in the illness” explained Prof Day. “Prevention is much easier than cure. The COPCOV study will find out if these drugs can prevent COVID19 or not.”
Similarly, the scientists say that safety concerns about hydroxychloroquine have been exaggerated.
“Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine have a very good safety record in the treatment of malaria and rheumatological conditions over the past 60 years. Billions of treatments have been given. Concerns that they might cause heart arrhythmias are not supported by the evidence from the randomised trials in COVID-19, and in rheumatological conditions hydroxychloroquine has actually been shown to reduce the risk of heart arrhythmias. There is very strong evidence that the doses being evaluated for prevention in the COPCOV study are safe,” said Prof Sir Nick White, COPCOV Co-Principal Investigator.
To evaluate ocular symptoms in European non-hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome–related coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and to investigate associations with the demographic data as well as nasal and general physical symptoms.
Methods
In this prospective, observational study, 108 non-hospitalized patients with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection not requiring intensive care were asked using a standardized questionnaire regarding disease associated ocular symptoms, demographic data, as well as general physical and nasal symptoms. Total ocular symptom score (TOSS) was evaluated during and retrospectively prior to coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) infection. Associations between TOSS and demographic data as well as general and nasal symptoms were evaluated.
Results
75 out of the 108 COVID-19 patients (69.4 %) suffered from at least one ocular symptom during COVID-19. The most common symptoms included burning sensations in 36.1% (n=39), epiphora in 34.3% (n=37), and redness in 25.9% (n=28), compatible with conjunctivitis. These symptoms occurred 1.96 ± 3.17 days after the beginning of COVID-19 and were rather mild. TOSS was significantly higher during COVID-19 (1.27±1.85) than prior to the infection (0.33±1.04; p<0.001). There were no significant associations between TOSS and gender (beta coefficient: -0.108; p=0.302), age (-0.024; p=0.816), rhinorrhea (-0.127; p=0.353), nasal itching (-0.026; p=0.803), sneezing (0.099; p=0.470), nasal congestion (-0.012; p=0.930), cough (-0.079; p=0.450), headache (0.102; p=0.325), sore throat (0.208; p=0.052), or fever (0.094; p=0.361).
Conclusions
Ocular involvement in European non-hospitalized patients with COVID-19 seems to be highly underestimated. Overall, these ocular symptoms including burning sensations, epiphora, and redness seem to be mild and seem not to need any treatment.
