- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Doody's Review Service
Reviewer: J. Thomas Pierce, MBBS PhD(Navy Environmental Health Center)Description: This book constitutes a short report describing the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) critique of the Site Exposure Matrix database (SEM), which is intended to support the claims process pursuant to the Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) Part E (PL 106-398, Title XXXVI). While the title or even the description might appear rather dry, this is actually a lively read that includes a discussion of strengths and weaknesses.
Purpose: The purpose is best described in the committee's tasking statement, which states that the IOM convened a panel of experts to review the scientific rigor and organization of the SEM. Because past or present employees will be financially compensated under the EEOICPA, there must be a scientific basis for the National Institute of Health's construction and review of Haz-Map. The purpose of the IOM work is further described in a series of rhetorical questions (SEM/Haz-Map). These questions include, "What, if any, occupational disease that might have affected the DOE contractor workforce are missing from SEM," and "How scientifically rigorous are the disease links contained in the SEM and Haz-Map?"
Audience: Likely readers include employees of the U.S. Departments of Labor and Energy, employee claimants and their attorneys, and others interested in the SEM process. Some readers may be interested in constructing a similar SEM for other cohorts of exposed workers.
Features: The book is divided into an introduction (EEOICPA SEM database, committee's charge and approach and report organization), the Haz-Map database (development, content, information sources, toxic substance-disease links, etc.), SEM database (use in the EEOICPA claims process, development, content and structure, etc.), and findings and recommendations.
Assessment: This will useful to those who choose to read and study its contents. Ultimately, the issue is how well the SEM database satisfies those who question the basis for occupational disease linkage currently used for compensation purposes. Questioners of the process have included the Rocky Mountain News and the Government Accountability Office. The IOM recommends a way forward in a series of three recommendations: Use more supplemental information sources for the SEM; improve its structure and function; and establish an expert advisory panel. These recommendations appear reasonable. They will ultimately be judged in the court of public opinion which includes, but is not limited by, science. My only suggestions beyond these would have been for IOM to have included a recommendation as to frequency and scope of a revisit to assess progress in light of the report's findings.
Overview