HOME PAGE

   
GO to Injured Worker Forum
Navigation:


FORUMS > EAMS
Replying to Thread: EAMS license limitation problems
Created On Monday 28, April, 2008 11:46 AM by Ozzie


New forums at: http://forums.workcompcentral.com
Username:
Password:

Remember my login



Forget your login information?





Ozzie
Senior Member

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2004

Monday April 28, 2008 11:46 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

WCC posted a news article that discussed the shortage of available licenses, indicating that the 1000 "outsider" licenses were not likely enough for all the users under "information technology industry standards, which even the division suggests may underestimate system demand, this number is low for the number of users EAMS needs to be able to serve."

What do industry standards suggest is enough? Even the possibility of 3,500 licenses does not seem to be enough to go around, given the possible number of claims adjusters, attorneys, lien claimants, and applicant's who would want to access the system at any given time.

It seems that the correct number should really be at least 10 times the figures the WCAB has released.

-------------------------
San Jose Dogman

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



art...
Senior Member

Posts: 224
Joined: Dec 2004

Monday April 28, 2008 6:26 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

At the risk of making an uninformed observation from the 'peanut gallery', it seems the vendor, by restricting the number of included licenses in the base package, has merely copied a page from Microsoft's play book. Get 'em hooked and then bill incrementally per user for what should've been included initially.

Wouldn't it have been better to forgo per user licensing altogether and instead bill based on actual usage? Using a sliding scale where, through the advantages of economy of scale, the pricing per unit of access declines the greater the volume?

Shouldn't, in theory, every IW be required to be issued a license if they're expected to use the service? That alone makes a 1000 license deal woefully inadequate from the get-go. Never mind all the other users...

What am I missing?



Edited: Monday April 28, 2008 at 6:31 PM by art...

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



jakelast@aol.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1024
Joined: Jun 2002

Monday April 28, 2008 10:03 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

What you are missing is a couple of things including the significance of the licenses. It apparently does not refer to the total number of users of the system overall but instead refers to the number of users of the system at any one time. As explained by the DWC in the article the license is like a parking spot. While it can only hold one car at a time, it is available over and over again.

It is not likely that the vendor restricted the number of licenses. It is much more likely that the DWC simply did not buy enough land to build a big enough parking lot, to take the analogy further. The probability is that the DWC will have to obtain some more licenses at some point but it is not clear when or how many until the patters are developed regarding accessing the system on a day to day basis.

The limitation in EAMs appears to be based on the number of contemporaneous users not the total number of users. It is assumed that DWC employees will be in the system more or less full time. It then becomes a question of how ofter non-DWC users are going to access the system. It is certainly concievable that there may be 20,000 or more total users but at any one time only 2000 are attempting to access the system. If there are only 1000 licenses there will be a rather continuous logjam. If there are 1800 licenses, there will be periodic logjams but generally there will be adequate access.

At this point it is difficult to determine how the access issue will sort out. However it is rarely, if ever, going to involve 20,000+ users trying to access the 1000 spots at one time. Nor is it necessary to have anywhere near as many licenses as users. Since much of what will be done to access the system is "data dumps" to file documents or data uploads to retrieve documents, many attorneys and claims administrators will probably schedule after hour access times to dump the information into EAMS and make requests for data and have little problem with access at that time. The real problem will be the ad hoc looking up of information during the day when everyone else is trying to access the system. We can also envision a logjam of downloads at 5 pm as everyone tries to meet timeframes for getting information to the WCAB.

Jake Jacobsmeyer
Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain, Claffey & Nix

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



TOBDNCNG@aol.com
Member

Posts: 100
Joined: Jan 2004

Tuesday April 29, 2008 6:56 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Hi Jake,

That was put excellently.

I think another way to look at it is that there are plenty of parking spaces at the mall. Everyone can park, but they only use the licenses when they are actually making a purchase in the mall. So, there are tons of users, but they only access the system at point of purchase.

I am sure there are going to have to be additional purchases of licenses too. I hope that even in this budget crisis there will be money available to do this.

Great post as always Jake. I learn a lot from you.

Marygrace~

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



ymcgavin@socal.rr.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1351
Joined: Jun 2002

Tuesday April 29, 2008 8:14 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Hi All:

Hmmm. Perhaps I am missing something as well.

Using the parking lot analogy, it appears as though regardless of the number of parking spaces available on the land purchased by the DWC, there are only 1,000 permits being issued to the entire comp community.

Regardless of whether there is room for 100 or 1,000 parked cars, there are only 1,000 permits issued for all.

As a lien claimant, we utilize EDEX all day long to file liens, look up claim history to ascertain the correct claim on which to file a lien, and to obtain as well as print out the OAR used as a POS mailing list necessary to file a DOR for the purpose of block setting down-the-road.

There are certainly more than 1,000 lien claimants, just in Los Angeles. Heavens, on just one file I have seen dozens and dozens of lien claimants.

Regardless of the land available for parking spaces, whether it be 100 or 10,000 parking spaces, there needs to be many more permits available than there are parking spaces.

One has to wonder if it is the capacity of the EAMS servers that is at issue, with that issue being confined to whether it can handle more than 1,000 permitted users at a time ---- or if the issue is whether 1,000 permitted user licenses is sufficient, despite the capacity of EAMS to handle more than 1,000 users at a time?

If the parking lot (EAMS servers) can handle 20,000 permitted users at a time, but the DWC only bought 1,000 licenses (permits) necessary to park in the DWC parking lot and access the EAMS servers, then the parking lot may have the capacity, but there are far too few permits --- considering the number of those wanting access to park. Thus, although the land on which the parking lot is located may be able to handle 20,000 permitted users at the same time, there are only 1,000 permits available, in toto.

I would submit that the DWC servers hosting EAMS can indeed handle 20,000 users at once. But, it appears to be the cost of the permits charged the DWC is what has limited the number of permits purchased to be only 1,000.

In my view, despite the availability of parking spaces, there are simply not enough permits allowing the entire comp community the opportunity to park there --- regardless of whether it is at the same time of day.

Another issue I have considered is that my company is a lien claimant. However, upon occasion, I represent an injured worker. Will my company be issued one permit, and I another? Or, will one single permit to my company allow me to avail myself of the EAMS system when I am representing an injured worker as well?

I like the concept of full access, but I do not see this happening. One of my most vociferous complaints on a day-after-day basis if the failure of the defendants to serve me medical reports relating to the claim prior to a hearing such as a mandatory settlement conference. If the upcoming trial is all about PD and apportionment, I easily envision that only the reports which address that issue will be filed by the applicant and defendant.

However, I would like to have my liens litigated along with the case-in-chief, as it should be for judicial economy. If all the medical documentation is not submitted by the applicant and defendant, and I have not been served prior to the MSC, I see the MSC getting continued to allow for service upon the lien claimant, then the lien claimant will have to file with EAMS the medical reports addressing the treatment.

My first experience with EAMS happened just last week. I appeared at an MSC and provided my lien with itemization and certified return receipt documentation to the WCJ for the purposes of establishing the date each itemization was received by the defendant --- in order to prove-up the exact date necessary to obtain the proper amount of interest due lien claimant on a per diem basis. The WCJ refused to accept the itemization, and refused to accept the certified return receipt documentation as exhibits. The only document allowed to be filed by the WCJ was the actual DWC WCAB Form 6, the green lien.

Now, when trial is held, and I am prosecuting not only the necessity of treatment, and the reasonableness of charges set forth on the itemization, I will also be seeking the interest due per LC 4603.2. The WCJ will have a dickens of a time determining whether the treatment was necessary, as the medical reports were never served upon me prior to the MSC, discovery closed at the MSC, and the only medical reports entered into evidence were those addressing PD and apportionment. The WCJ will have a dickens of a time determining if my charges were reasonable, as I was not allowed to have my itemizations entered into EAMS at the time of the MSC. Last, if I prevail on the necessity of treatment and reasonableness of charges, the WCJ will have a dickens of a time determining the amount of interest due, as the certified return receipt documentation is not in EAMS.

York McGavin
ymcgavin@socal.rr.com

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Michaelb
Member

Posts: 187
Joined: Aug 2007

Tuesday April 29, 2008 9:49 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

AAH, we have the heart of the problem. Despite the "uniform" policy the EAMS is charged with creating, the individual WCABs will still play in their own sandbox.
The San Diego WCAB will not let you enter evidence until the day of trial!
You are instructed the list your exhibits at the MSC but to avoid the time and cost of scanning, the exhibits are not to be included.
In York's case, he will continue to be deprived the information he needs.
If the judges were a little less King Solomon, the laws would be enforced and penalties accessed.

How long can an user stay hooked up to EAMS? I would assume the DWC offices would never shut off during working hours and many others would avoid shutting down to guarantee access when they need it.

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



art...
Senior Member

Posts: 224
Joined: Dec 2004

Tuesday April 29, 2008 10:29 AM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Interesting and informative answers. As an IW my interaction/usage obviously will not raise to the levels of the professionals here, however EAMS will soon be an issue raised by increasing numbers of IW's on the other forum here and being better informed will enable the fielding of their questions.

To shift metaphors here, I see it as more of a restaurant than a parking lot. Currently EAMS licensing seems to be arraigned on a waiter served, la carte basis whereas a self-serve buffet style might serve the clientele better. How to achieve that on an efficient and cost-effective basis is the rub.

Good luck to all in these uncharted waters.

Edited: Tuesday April 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM by art...

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



jakelast@aol.com
Senior Member

Posts: 1024
Joined: Jun 2002

Tuesday April 29, 2008 12:54 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

I tend to agree with York that 1000 licenses for the WC Community is going to be a serious shortage. However the issue I hoped to point out is that problem is not necessarily the magnitude that it appears. From what I have read the issue with the licenses is likely budgetary. Funds will have to be made available if more licenses are to be purchased, as I anticipate they will. However we do nto need 20000 licenses for the system if there are 20000 potential users.

Even in the example with York's company, it is unlikely that access to EAMs will be maintained all day. You will go in, get or deposit your data, and get out. When yoiu exit, a spot opens up for someone else to go in. When that person exist another may enter. What we do not want is having a bunch of people waiting for EAMs hogs like York to leave so that we can access the system.

The issue of funding is certainly interesting as the DWC is user funded. In effect employers are funding the system and will be funding the access fees for EAMs. Obtaining additional licenses may be as simple as putting them in the budget and getting the money from employers, but I doubt it will be quite that simple.

I do expect EAMS will be available 24/7 with the only limitations being down time for maintenance etc. This might even mean that the licenses that are being used during the day pretty much full time by DWC employees may be open during afterhours thereby expanding access at that time. I supect that York's company could probably obtrain most of the information that was desired by accessing the system after the WCAB is closed. We will probably all change our patterns of access to the data over time. Keep in mind, before EAMS our access was very limited.

Jake Jacobsmeyer
Shaw, Jacobsmeyer, Crain, Claffey & Nix


Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Ozzie
Senior Member

Posts: 430
Joined: Apr 2004

Friday May 02, 2008 3:59 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

The question is still un-answered, What do industry standards suggest is enough? I was well aware of the "parking lot" issue, but there surely plenty of experts on this question.

Here we are in Silicon Valley, surrounded by Google, Ebay, Yahoo, and every player in the business - and no answer to that question?

The DWC seemed to be saying that there was an "industry standard," implying that they had some information on the estimated number of uses and how they calculated it. So where's the magic information, and how was it calculated?

York's comments are spot on: many professional lien representatives will be on the system virtually all day long, and so will the big carriers. And I do have go with the Microsoft analogy, too: Surely DeLoitt and Touche knew what the number should be, so what did they suggest when DWC asked "how many do we need?" And why is each additional license going to cost $1,000?

Considering the lien reps, the IC adjusters, and us lowly attorneys, it seems to leave a deficit of at least 5,000 or more licenses.

-------------------------
San Jose Dogman

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



steve appell
Senior Member

Posts: 1017
Joined: Feb 2005

Friday May 02, 2008 4:35 PM

User is offline View users profile View thread in raw text format

One thousand is a very accurate number for EAMS!

1000 spots...................is too little.
1000 dollars.................is too much.
1000 complaints .........in the first month
1000 cont hearings.... in the first year
1000 percent............... i'm in favor of going foward with the program.

-------------------------
Steve

A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
- George Bernard Shaw

Edited: Friday May 02, 2008 at 5:43 PM by steve appell

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



Michaelb
Member

Posts: 187
Joined: Aug 2007

Friday May 02, 2008 5:03 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

Could it be that there will be free licenses and "premium" paid licenses?

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom



TOBDNCNG@aol.com
Member

Posts: 100
Joined: Jan 2004

Friday May 02, 2008 10:30 PM

User is offline View thread in raw text format

I know stakeholders are meeting with DWC to see if there can be things worked out. There were some great suggestions, as well as concerns and questions, at the last meeting.

It will go forward and work itself out. I don't know of any system that didn't have problems when it rolled out. Heck, look at every version of Windows, including Vista... (chuckle, chuckle, chuckle!)

My hope is that the vendors can come up with a solution with DWC as has been done in the past. I especially hope there can be a way to have the info eletronically entered and skip the scanning option. That just seems redundant to me. I am no expert, but I know EAMS is coming. What can we do to make sure it goes well?

Glowing,

Marygrace~

Reply
Quote
Top
Bottom

You are in message post mode [ FORUMS : THREADS ]

FuseTalk 3.0 - Copyright © 1999-2002 e-Zone Media Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2013 WorkCompCentral Workers Compensation Forums