Following a misleading Rocky Mountain News column and Pueblo Chieftain editorial, a March 26 editorial in The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction echoed insurance industry criticism of a bill that would make it easier for firefighters diagnosed with suspected job-related cancer to collect medical costs under the state's workers compensation program. According to the Daily Sentinel, House Bill 1008 is “horrible public policy for many reasons, not least of which is the fact it is not supported by science.” The Daily Sentinel further argued that HB 1008 could “add incredible costs to larger districts and municipal fire departments.” However, the editorial ignored facts -- as did the News and the Chieftain -- that contradicted its argument, some of which were raised in a March 22 News online op-ed piece (accessed through the newspaper's electronic edition) by the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Mike Cerbo (D-Denver).

From the March 26 editorial “Where's the fire?” in The Daily Sentinel of Grand Junction:

Democrats in the Colorado Legislature are in the process of establishing a new medical principle by legislative fiat: If a firefighter contracts cancer -- even much later in life -- it must be a direct result of his or her fire fighting.

Never mind that there is a dearth of scientific evidence to prove that claim. Heck, the Democrats are even willing to extend the presumption of job-caused cancer to those who never fought a fire in their lives, but simply worked for a fire department.

[...]

This legislation is horrible public policy for many reasons, not least of which is the fact it is not supported by science.

For one thing, it is not addressing some current problem. The largest workers' compensation insurance company in Colorado says it has never had a firefighter file a job-related cancer claim in its 91 years in business.

That will change, and quickly, if HB 1008 becomes law.

[...]

Leaders of labor unions in Colorado were furious earlier this year when Gov. Bill Ritter vetoed one of their favored pieces of legislation. Now, Democrats in the Legislature seem eager to appease them with other bills, including this one. But the Democrats ought to consider their other constituents, those who pay taxes to cities and fire districts.

HB 1008 is irresponsible legislation that could bankrupt small fire districts, add incredible costs to larger districts and municipal fire departments, create a dangerous new precedent, all to address a problem that doesn't exist.

An undated insurance industry memo made two of the same points central to the Daily Sentinel's editorial. Pinnacol Assurance, which identifies itself as “the largest workers' compensation insurance company in Colorado,” maintained in the memo sent to "[m]embers of the Colorado House of Representatives" that "[w]e simply do not know what causes most cancers." Further, it warned that if HB 1008 becomes law, "[t]here will be a large cost impact to cities, counties and special districts which have volunteer firefighters."

However, as Colorado Media Matters noted, HB 1008's fiscal note, prepared by the nonpartisan Colorado Legislative Council (CLC), states that "[s]ince work-related cancer is already compensable under state law, few if any new workers' compensation claims are anticipated to be filed or paid." The CLC further concluded that HB 1008 “will not significantly increase or decrease state revenue or expenditures.”

Furthermore, as Cerbo pointed out in his “Speakout” op-ed in the News, “While the impact to the medical treatment of sick firefighters is huge, the fiscal impact is miniscule [sic]”:

In the first 4 years after passing presumptive cancer legislation in Nevada, the state had a total of three claims. The state of Oklahoma had 22 claims paid in the 6 years after passing presumptive legislation, an average of less than 4 claims per year. The average cost per claim was $10,409.00 for a state of 12,420 firefighters. This means that it about $3.00 per year per firefighter to pay for the coverage of cancer in his/her profession statewide.

In his op-ed, Cerbo also addressed the Daily Sentinel's assertion that HB 1008 is “not supported by science.” According to Cerbo, "[E]veryone knows that many substances have been identified as carcinogens. These include the many cancer-causing chemicals to which firefighters are repeatedly exposed":

Firefighters have a higher incidence of contracting cancer than the general population. Numerous nationally published and accredited studies show that firefighters are exposed to a variety of known carcinogens, as defined by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, during their work. Practically every emergency situation encountered by a firefighter has the potential for exposure to carcinogenic agents such as benzene.

Despite this, firefighters never receive Workers Compensation for job-related cancer.

Indeed, a 2006 study by the University of Cincinnati -- described as “the largest comprehensive study to date investigating cancer risk associated with working as a firefighter” -- found that “firefighters are significantly more likely to develop four different types of cancer than workers in other fields.” According to the summary posted on the university's website:

[T]he protective equipment firefighters have used in the past didn't do a good job in protecting them against cancer-causing agents they encounter in their profession, the researchers say.

The researchers found, for example, that firefighters are twice as likely to develop testicular cancer and have significantly higher rates of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and prostate cancer than non-firefighters. The researchers also confirmed previous findings that firefighters are at greater risk for multiple myeloma.