As firefighters, paramedics and 911 dispatchers, you keep the safety and risk management practices of your community members top-of-mind, but how often do you evaluate your own risks? Considering the fact that a new cyberattack occurs every 39 seconds, 64% of companies have experienced at least one cyberattack, and a cyberattack on your organization could impact your entire town—when it comes to cyber safety, it’s vital to think about your own risks, too.

VFIS has a cybersecurity microsite to help you understand your risks, know what to do if you experience a breach and understand key ways to help prevent one from happening in the first place.
​
You’ll find picks for who to follow on online to get the latest cyber risks and recommendations, as well as resources designed specifically for responders and answers to your top cyber-related questions.

As many of you are aware, the Texas State Legislature recently passed HB471. This new law is to become effective September 1, 2023. For those of you not aware of HB471, I am attaching a copy for you (link below). In short it requires that when a member of a department, whether fire, police or emergency medical personnel, goes out on a disability that is Line of Duty related, the department is responsible for replacing 100% of the member’s income for the
first twelve months.

Our reading of HB471, in its current form, is not fiscally or administratively feasible to be implemented. We have contacted SAFE-D and ask that their legal and legislative persons request clarification of certain issues as well as to request an implementation period of 12 months. Reasons for not seeing HB471, in its current form, as fiscally or administratively feasible are listed below.

1. Line of Duty Disability is typically a Workers Compensation (WC) claim. In Texas, WC replaces 70% of the disabled member’s income. However, WC only covers the standard 40 hours a week and not the overtime that most members financially depend on. Did the Legislature mean to only extend the additional coverage to 40 hours or 53 hours?
2. WC, Employer paid Group Disability as well as Federal Social Security Disability ALL, coordinate benefits payable as well as any monies paid by an employer while a member is on claim. This means that at no time would the member, under the current system receive more than 70% of their pre-disability income. In order to get this to work we need to obtain a ruling from the Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) that would allow WC and Employer paid Group Disability to issue policies that do not coordinate/offset benefits with one another or with monies paid by the department in addition to the benefits paid by insurance.
   
3. The Texas Mutual WC policy covers the lost income from all work sources of a member. For example, if a member works at two departments, (Dept. A and Dept. B) and becomes disabled at Dept. A, the Texas Mutual WC will not only replace the 70% of the members income from Dept. A, but also up to the 70% of lost income from Dept. B. HB471 does not address whether Dept. A in the example above would also be liable for the lost income balance from Dept. B that is not covered by the WC.
   
4. HB471 also didn’t provide guidance on part-time members versus fulltime members. Employer paid Group Disability is established at a minimum for those working an average of 20 hours or more a week. Having said that, there isn’t currently a means to insure those members working less than 20 hours except for what WC pays.
   
5. HB471 does not specify the size of the department this applies to. While larger departments within major metros may have the monies to pay premiums to insure against this risk, smaller departments simply don’t have the tax base to pay additional premiums. We suggest using the same measurement that was applied to HB2171, which is those that serve wholly or in part a county with a population of 150,000 or greater.
   
   

The VFIS disability pool could provide an insured solution by not having to coordinate our policies with WC. This would require TDI granting the Administrative Ruling.

My hope is that this will provide some insight in to the current issues surrounding HB471 and what is needed to make the goal of HB471 a reality.