The Incredible Abuse of Saskatchewan No-Fault Insurance part 3

The Incredible Abuse of Saskatchewan

No-Fault Insurance (Part 3)

Nipawin - June 2, 2000 - By: Mario deSantis and reviewed by James deSantis, illustration by TWS

Part 1
The governmental environment and their sponsored researches

Dr. David Cassidy's study on No-Fault Insurance

Part 2
Dr. Cassidy's study doesn't make common sense,
it is just an adulteration of numbers

Part 3
Dr. Cassidy received a grant in the order of at least a million dollar from SGI

Changing definitions of whiplash injury, and the proxy of settlement date as the recovery date

The limitations of statistics as expressed by George H. Gallup

Today's report is the third in a four part series posted each day for this week dealing with these issues that revolve around SGI'sno-fault insurance.

Conclusions

---Dr. Cassidy received a grant in the order of at least a million dollar from SGI

the charge
that they are
for sale
There is acknowledged evidence that Dr. Cassidy's research was supported by a grant in the

order of at least a million dollar from SGI, a governmental insurance corporation in

Saskatchewan. A million dollars is a lot of money, and this amount is quite enough to raise

eyebrows about the arm's length relationship between Dr. Cassidy, the University of

Saskatchewan, this government and SGI. In this respect, researcher Dr. Marcia Angel has

recently stated that "Academic institutions and their clinical faculty members must take care

not to be open to ⁽¹⁾." Also, the allegations that Dr. Cassidy's

research was blatantly adulterated doesn't sustain the integrity of the authors of this study and

the integrity of the conclusions of this same study⁽²⁾.

Changing definitions of whiplash injury, and the proxy of settlement date as the recovery date

definitions
have not been standardized
In the last ten years the definitions and medical treatment of whiplash injuries has been changing.

Even today, whiplash injuries and definitions have not been standardized yet to support the

so-called objective statistical researches. An article of the insurance and medical paper

Recovery⁽³⁾' published in the Summer of 1999 states that the disparity of incidence of whiplash

injuries reported in different studies is "quite likely due to whiplash case definition, how claims

are counted (the number submitted versus the number awarded compensation), different

claiming incentives in different jurisdictions, and perhaps even different social expectations for

compensation . More studies will need to be conducted before we can fully understand these

regional variations."

don't think settlement
date is a
very good indicator
The SGI's rehabilitation and medical programs changed during the period of the study conducted

by Dr. Cassidy and therefore the changing of these programs affected the recovery time of the

injured people. As a consequence, Dr. Cassidy's assumption to equate claim closure with recovery

is completely out of place. Dr. Cassidy defends this assumption to equate claim closure to recovery

by saying that "we report extensive analysis showing that claim closure is highly associated with

improvements in neck pain, physical functioning and depressive symptoms.⁽⁴⁾" The inconsistency

with this assumption taken by Dr. Cassisy is further explained by Jon Schubert, Assistant Vice

President with SGI. In his letter dated August 1, 1995 directed to Dr. Cassidy, Jon Schubert

states "I personally don't think settlement date is a very good indicator of the degree of injury or

recovery⁽⁵⁾."

statistically incorrect
There is no doubt that Dr. Cassidy is a reductionist researcher exploiting any minor correlation

number he can get from his study and then jump to phony conclusions. In describing how

reductionist researchers can come up with phony conclusions, Professor Robert Sternberg says

that "anyone who takes statistics knows, you can't draw any real causal conclusions from

correlational data. Lots of things correlate with lots of things... To draw causal inferences from

correlational data is statistically incorrect... Another thing they do, in comparing correlations, is

that they don't take into account the reliability and precision of the measures being used. For

example, almost every measure we use is a proxy for something else."

-----------References & Endnotes:

Quote by Donella Meadows "challenging a paradigm is not a part-time job. It is not sufficient to make your point once and then blame the world for not getting it. The world has a vested interest in, a commitment to, not getting it. The point has to be made patiently and repeatedly, day after day after day" ftp://sysdyn.mit.edu/ftp/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4143-1.pdf http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/meadows/default.htm

General reference: Articles by Mario deSantis published by Ensign http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/authors/desantis.html

Dr. Cassidy's study on no-fault insurance: supporting another shock absorber, by Mario deSantis, April 20, 2000

The fight against No-Fault Insurance is a fight for our Freedom: Attend the Public Forum at the Saskatoon Public Library on May 13, 2000, by Mario deSantis, May 9, 2000

1.
--
Is Academic Medicine for Sale?, by Marcia Angell, M.D., The New England Journal of Medicine -- May 18, 2000 -- Vol. 342, No. 20, http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020/1516.asp

2.
-
Research favoring auto no-fault collides with trial lawyers, Bob Van Voris, The National Law Journal, May 22, 2000, http://www.law.com

3.
--
Leaps and Bounds, Recovery, Volume 10, Number 2, Summer 1999, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, BC, Canada http://www.icbc.com/oldrecover/Volume10/Number2/articles/bounds.htm

4.
--
Critics should submit own research, Dr. David Cassidy's letter to the Editor, The StarPhoenix, May 17, 2000, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

5.
--
Letter dated August 1, 1995 from Jon Schubert, Assistant Vice President with SGI, directed to Dr. Cassidy http://www.angelfire.com/nf/coalitionagainstnf/SGI.htm

The Incredible Abuse of Saskatchewan No-Fault Insurance (Part 3)

*Nipawin - June 2, 2000 -* By: *Mario deSantis and reviewed by James deSantis, illustration by TWS*

Part 1	The governmental environment and their sponsored researches
	Dr. David Cassidy's study on No-Fault Insurance

Part 2	Dr. Cassidy's study doesn't make common sense, it is just an adulteration of numbers

Part 3	Dr. Cassidy received a grant in the order of at least a million dollar from SGI
	Changing definitions of whiplash injury, and the proxy of settlement date as the recovery date

	*The limitations of statistics as expressed by George H. Gallup*	Today's report is the third in a four part series posted each day for this week dealing with these issues that revolve around SGI'sno-fault insurance.

	*Conclusions*

---Dr. Cassidy received a grant in the order of at least a million dollar from SGI

the charge that they are for sale	There is acknowledged evidence that Dr. Cassidy's research was supported by a grant in the
	order of at least a million dollar from SGI, a governmental insurance corporation in
	Saskatchewan. A million dollars is a lot of money, and this amount is quite enough to raise
	eyebrows about the arm's length relationship between Dr. Cassidy, the University of
	Saskatchewan, this government and SGI. In this respect, researcher Dr. Marcia Angel has
	recently stated that "Academic institutions and their clinical faculty members must take care
	not to be open to ⁽¹⁾." Also, the allegations that Dr. Cassidy's
	research was blatantly adulterated doesn't sustain the integrity of the authors of this study and
	the integrity of the conclusions of this same study⁽²⁾.

Changing definitions of whiplash injury, and the proxy of settlement date as the recovery date

definitions have not been standardized	In the last ten years the definitions and medical treatment of whiplash injuries has been changing.
	Even today, whiplash injuries and definitions have not been standardized yet to support the
	so-called objective statistical researches. An article of the insurance and medical paper
	Recovery⁽³⁾' published in the Summer of 1999 states that the disparity of incidence of whiplash
	injuries reported in different studies is "quite likely due to whiplash case definition, how claims
	are counted (the number submitted versus the number awarded compensation), different
	claiming incentives in different jurisdictions, and perhaps even different social expectations for
	compensation . More studies will need to be conducted before we can fully understand these
	regional variations."

don't think settlement date is a very good indicator	The SGI's rehabilitation and medical programs changed during the period of the study conducted
	by Dr. Cassidy and therefore the changing of these programs affected the recovery time of the
	injured people. As a consequence, Dr. Cassidy's assumption to equate claim closure with recovery
	is completely out of place. Dr. Cassidy defends this assumption to equate claim closure to recovery
	by saying that "we report extensive analysis showing that claim closure is highly associated with
	improvements in neck pain, physical functioning and depressive symptoms.⁽⁴⁾" The inconsistency
	with this assumption taken by Dr. Cassisy is further explained by Jon Schubert, Assistant Vice
	President with SGI. In his letter dated August 1, 1995 directed to Dr. Cassidy, Jon Schubert
	states "I personally don't think settlement date is a very good indicator of the degree of injury or
	recovery⁽⁵⁾."

statistically incorrect	There is no doubt that Dr. Cassidy is a reductionist researcher exploiting any minor correlation
	number he can get from his study and then jump to phony conclusions. In describing how
	reductionist researchers can come up with phony conclusions, Professor Robert Sternberg says
	that "anyone who takes statistics knows, you can't draw any real causal conclusions from
	correlational data. Lots of things correlate with lots of things... To draw causal inferences from
	correlational data is statistically incorrect... Another thing they do, in comparing correlations, is
	that they don't take into account the reliability and precision of the measures being used. For
	example, almost every measure we use is a proxy for something else."

-----------References & Endnotes:

	Quote by Donella Meadows "challenging a paradigm is not a part-time job. It is not sufficient to make your point once and then blame the world for not getting it. The world has a vested interest in, a commitment to, not getting it. The point has to be made patiently and repeatedly, day after day after day" ftp://sysdyn.mit.edu/ftp/sdep/Roadmaps/RM1/D-4143-1.pdf http://iisd1.iisd.ca/pcdf/meadows/default.htm

	General reference: Articles by Mario deSantis published by Ensign http://www.ftlcomm.com/ensign/authors/desantis.html

	Dr. Cassidy's study on no-fault insurance: supporting another shock absorber, by Mario deSantis, April 20, 2000

	The fight against No-Fault Insurance is a fight for our Freedom: Attend the Public Forum at the Saskatoon Public Library on May 13, 2000, by Mario deSantis, May 9, 2000

1. --	Is Academic Medicine for Sale?, by Marcia Angell, M.D., The New England Journal of Medicine -- May 18, 2000 -- Vol. 342, No. 20, http://www.nejm.org/content/2000/0342/0020/1516.asp

2. -	Research favoring auto no-fault collides with trial lawyers, Bob Van Voris, The National Law Journal, May 22, 2000, http://www.law.com

3. --	Leaps and Bounds, Recovery, Volume 10, Number 2, Summer 1999, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, BC, Canada http://www.icbc.com/oldrecover/Volume10/Number2/articles/bounds.htm

4. --	Critics should submit own research, Dr. David Cassidy's letter to the Editor, The StarPhoenix, May 17, 2000, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan

5. --	Letter dated August 1, 1995 from Jon Schubert, Assistant Vice President with SGI, directed to Dr. Cassidy http://www.angelfire.com/nf/coalitionagainstnf/SGI.htm