Workers' compensation in the United States: high costs, low benefits

Studies suggest that income replacement is low for many workers with serious occupational injuries and illnesses. This review discusses three areas that hold promise for raising benefits to workers while reducing workers' compensation costs to employers: improving safety, containing medical costs, and reducing litigation. In theory, workers' compensation increases the costs to employers of injuries and so provides incentives to improve safety. Yet, taken as a whole, research does not provide convincing evidence that workers' compensation reduces injury rates. Moreover, unlike safety and health regulation, workers' compensation focuses the attention of employers on individual workers. High costs may lead employers to discourage claims and litigate when claims are filed. Controlling medical costs can reduce workers' compensation costs. Most studies, however, have focused on costs and have not addressed the effectiveness of medical care or patient satisfaction. Research also has shown that workers' compensation systems can reduce the need for litigation. Without litigation, benefits can be delivered more quickly and at lower costs.

Connection Scheduling in Web Servers

Under high loads, a Web server may be servicing many hundreds of connections concurrently. In traditional Web servers, the question of the order in which concurrent connections are serviced has been left to the operating system. In this paper we ask whether servers might provide better service by using non-traditional service ordering. In particular, for the case when a Web server is serving static files, we examine the costs and benefits of a policy that gives preferential service to short connections. We start by assessing the scheduling behavior of a commonly used server (Apache running on Linux) with respect to connection size and show that it does not appear to provide preferential service to short connections. We then examine the potential performance improvements of a policy that does favor short connections (shortest-connection-first). We show that mean response time can be improved by factors of four or five under shortest-connection-first, as compared to an (Apache-like) size-independent policy. Finally we assess the costs of shortest-connection-first scheduling in terms of unfairness (i.e., the degree to which long connections suffer). We show that under shortest-connection-first scheduling, long connections pay very little penalty. This surprising result can be understood as a consequence of heavy-tailed Web server workloads, in which most connections are small, but most server load is due to the few large connections. We support this explanation using analysis.

Fine-Grained Layered Multicast

Traditional approaches to receiver-driven layered multicast have advocated the benefits of cumulative layering, which can enable coarse-grained congestion control that complies with TCP-friendliness equations over large time scales. In this paper, we quantify the costs and benefits of using non-cumulative layering and present a new, scalable multicast congestion control scheme which provides a fine-grained approximation to the behavior of TCP additive increase/multiplicative decrease (AIMD). In contrast to the conventional wisdom, we demonstrate that fine-grained rate adjustment can be achieved with only modest increases in the number of layers and aggregate bandwidth consumption, while using only a small constant number of control messages to perform either additive increase or multiplicative decrease.