Posts Tagged ‘premium avoidance’

New Hampshire: Are Injured Workers Avoiding Comp?

Thursday, September 6th, 2012

The Insider has come across an intriguing but ultimately frustrating study concerning the under-reporting of workers comp claims in New Hampshire. Under the auspices of the NH Department of Health and Human Services, the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System survey (with the unfortunate acronym of BRFSS) conducted phone interviews with nearly 7,000 adults who were employed during 2008. About 340 people – close to 5 percent – reported that they had been injured at work sometime during the prior year – injured, that is, seriously enough to require “medical advice or treatment.” (Sigh, when you include “medical advice,” you might be including the first-aid-only incidents that should be excluded from the study.)
Here is the interesting – if somewhat compromised – nugget from the study. Among those who were injured, only 54 percent reported that their treatment was paid (“all or in part”) by workers compensation. The remaining 46% reported their treatment was paid for by private or government insurance (25%) or by other means (21%). Unfortunately, by the time you get down to the 150 people in the non-comp segment, the combination of small numbers and ambiguous questions seriously reduces our ability to draw any meaningful conclusions. The study may indicate substantial under-reporting, but to know for sure, the researchers are going to have to ask some more questions.
Focus on Comp
Because the survey is conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services, the focus on workers comp is, pardon the expression, almost accidental. In fact, the 2008 survey was the first time they included questions about workplace injuries and payment for related treatment. While I applaud their interest in comp, I hope they would consider adding just a few questions to make the survey more effective. Assuming the survey guarantees anonymity, the questions might include:
– For those reporting that they are self-employed, ask whether they carry workers comp insurance (it is optional in NH).
– For those reporting that they were injured, the follow-up questions should be limited to those who secured outside medical treatment (and not those seeking only “advice”).
– If comp paid just “part” of the treatment cost, who paid the remainder?
– For any worker whose treatment was not covered 100% by workers comp, ask whether they paid anything out of pocket (which would be a violation of comp law).
– If treatment was covered by a non-comp insurer, ask whether workers were instructed by their employer to report the injury as “non-work related” (employers giving this instruction and employees following it are committing insurance fraud).
– For any workers reporting injuries, ask whether they lost time from work due to the injury and whether they were paid for the time they missed. (Some employers are so determined to avoid the comp system, they pay wages for employees missing time due to injury, even beyond the state’s three day waiting period.)
Cost-Shifting?
Lurking in the shadows of this study is the distinct possibility that under-reporting is real and possibly instigated by employers trying to game the experience rating system; they are shifting costs onto forms of insurance that are less loss sensitive. In addition, Injured workers may fear retaliation for reporting legitimate injuries: they may face disciplinary action, may be fired, may be denied overtime or may even ruin the “days without accident” program that dangles the promise of a pizza lunch and drawing for a TV if a certain number of days are free from (reported) injuries.
The BRFSS study provides just enough data to tease us: there may be a serious issue here, but then again, there may be no problem at all. To the good folks in New Hampshire, let this be a word of encouragement. Your study, to put it rather harshly, may be kind of useless in its current form, but with a little tweaking, it might lead to genuine insight into the way injuries are managed in – and possibly diverted from – the state’s workers comp system.

North Carolina’s “ghost workers” allow scofflaws to thrive while by-the-book employers suffer

Tuesday, August 28th, 2012

What happens to honest businesses when unscrupulous competitive businesses fail to carry workers’ compensation insurance for their employees? In the difficult economy, some of the honest players have suffered losses while scofflaws thrive. North Carolina’s NewsObserver features an investigative series on Ghost Workers, which takes an in-depth look at the many ramifications of workers’ comp avoidance schemes and the ways that this type of fraud hurts other businesses, the state’s coffers, and any workers who are injured on the job.

State legislators and candidates in the upcoming state elections are competing to raise the outrage meter in the wake of the NewsObserver‘s revelations that as many as 30,000 employers are failing to carry workers’ compensation insurance. Many of these employers are misclassifying workers as independent contractors, so they are also thumbing their noses at other statutory obligations such as taxes, Social Security, unemployment tax, and overtime pay.
Unsurprisingly to those who have followed the misclassification trail in other states, the construction industry offers a fertile climate for fraud to thrive. The NewsObserver explains how a unique bureaucratic loophole in the state can be worked to game the system:

“A business owner, often in the construction industry, tells his insurance agent that he has no employees. He excludes himself from the policy, which is his right as a sole proprietor. He buys a policy to cover a “ghost,” an unknown employee who might unexpectedly join him to work during the year.

These policies can make a business look like it has more insurance coverage for its workers than it has.”

Tax dodging employers can hide under layers of subcontractors, as well as by hiring illegal immigrants. And state agencies that operate in silos are not coordinating to thwart this practice.
Not all the employers are small operations – the expose talks about a firm named Martin’s Bricklaying, which supplied 76,000 hours of labor to help build the $125 million Wake County Detention Center, earning $1,066,538 for this work.

“The company’s owner, Sabas Martin Galeana, has run afoul of state and federal tax obligations in years past, court records show; he settled the last of three liens in 2009. A review of several employees’ recent pay stubs shows that Martin has failed to withhold state and federal taxes as recently as July. The workers say he didn’t provide his workers the tax forms they needed to settle their own obligations.”

The practice of employee misclassification isn’t unique and it’s hardly surprising. But what is surprising is that North Carolina is so slow off the mark when other states and the federal government have been taking aggressive steps to curb misclassification and to penalize scofflaws. We’ve been covering stories of states getting tough on misclassification and workers comp avoidance since 2004. We wonder how the heads of various agencies in North Carolina never noticed. The state has faced serious budget cuts to valued services in recent years, all the while bleeding much needed tax revenue to lawbreakers. Kudos to the NewsObserver for their series.
North Carolina legislators will be working to plug this hole – particularly since it’s an election year. They may also want to sign on to federal efforts such as the
Deparment of Labor’s Misclassification Initiative. Thirteen states have signed Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs) with the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division, and in some cases, with its Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP), and the Office of the Solicitor. The DOL says that these MOUs, “will enable the Department to share information and to coordinate enforcement efforts with participating states in order to level the playing field for law-abiding employers and to ensure that employees receive the protections to which they are entitled under federal and state law. Employers that misclassify their employees may not be paying the proper overtime compensation, FICA and Unemployment Insurances taxes, or workers’ compensation premiums.”