Posts Tagged ‘reform’

Taking Credit When It’s Due (And When It’s Not)

Wednesday, September 20th, 2017

Politicians have proven over and over again to be the most adept people in the known universe at taking credit for good things happening with which they had absolutely no involvement and blaming others for bad things happening with which they were directly connected. Case in point is happening right now in the Hawkeye state of Iowa where workers’ compensation rates for 2018 are going down 8.7%.

About a nanosecond after NCCI announced the rate reduction, Republican Governor Kim Reynolds issued a press release claiming the rate decline to be the “direct result” of workers’ compensation legislative reforms that went into effect in July, which, if you happen to be counting, ended 51 days ago as I write this. Phew. That was quick.

Of course, while the new reforms may reduce costs in the future, they have nothing at all to do with the recently announced rate cut, which, according to NCCI, is predicated on a decrease in claim frequency and actuarial data from 2014 and 2015, which, if you’re still counting, is a full 18 months before the new reforms, to whose sticking post Reynolds has now glued himself.

It will be interesting to see, over time, if the new reforms reduce costs for Iowa’s employers and enhance care for its injured workers. That’ll be a neat trick for which Kim Reynolds can justifiably stand up and take a bow at some date in the future, say around 2019.

Here’s a little ditty to go out on:

It’s a little early for the Reynolds curtain call
But if things don’t work out, who takes the fall?

 

The Experience Rating Process: Significant Changes Are Imminent

Monday, December 17th, 2012

Here at the Insider we realize that we have readers from different areas of the insurance world, some directly related to workers’ comp and others indirectly related. Some of our readers are risk managers at large Fortune numbered companies. Other readers are with agencies and brokerages, large and small. Still others work in various roles for insurers. Because in just a couple of weeks the insurance industry’s experience rating system will undergo its first significant change since 1990, we’ve decided, beginning today, to present a 5-part series aimed at those readers for whom this change will have direct and immediate impact.
For some readers, what we’ll be presenting will be old news. If you’re in this group, this is the time to hit the “delete” key. Also, to be candid, the first, and possibly second, post may appear too basic for some, but we believe we have to prime the pump before we can draw the water. For everyone else, hang around; there might be something to learn. We’re talking directly to middle and small market employers and the agents, brokers and consultants who serve them. Essentially, anyone affected by experience rating.
The goal: Reduce the cost of workers comp insurance
Other than reducing payroll, in most cases the only way for an insured employer to reduce its workers compensation premium is by reducing experience modification, which is the end result of the experience rating process. Experience rating is complex, but it contains elements responsive to strategic planning and employer control. That’s why understanding experience rating is so important.
First, some basics. Coming up with an employer’s workers comp premium is, essentially, a two-step process. The first step multiplies the employer’s premium class rate by its payroll in hundred-dollar increments. That is: rate times each hundred dollars of payroll. This is called the “manual premium.” In the second step the insurer multiplies the manual premium by the “experience modification factor,” which is derived from a mathematical calculation that examines the employer’s claim loss history over the most recent three-year period in relation to its industrial peers. The application of the “mod” will either raise or lower the manual premium, resulting in a competitive advantage or disadvantage. This is why keeping the mod low is so vital.
NOTE: For a comprehensive basic primer on experience rating, we recommend going to the source: The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) website provides a well-written document (PDF) that will walk you through the fundamentals of experience rating.
In the next four posts we offer the following:

  • First, a basic review of claim losses, the building blocks of experience rating
  • Second, an explanation of the difference between Primary and Excess Loss, as well as a description of the 2013 Split Point change
  • Third, a recommendation for dealing with Reserves
  • Fourth, a discussion of Expected Losses, Expected Loss Rates and a wrap-up.

Keep in mind that in experience rating, size matters. Large insureds with large premiums are expected to have higher losses than smaller insureds. Indeed, because their margin of error is smaller, companies with premiums in the $10,000 to $100,000 range can easily find themselves in a lot of trouble with just a few injuries.

Texas Workers’ Compensation Opt-Out Report: A Herculean Effort Lighting a Path to the Future (Or Maybe the Past)

Thursday, December 13th, 2012

Unlike any other US state, Texas has never required its employers to buy or provide statutory workers’ compensation. Texas employers who opt-out of this traditional form of injury benefit system are called non-subscribers. In 1993, 44% of Texas employers were non-subscribers, and they employed 20% of the employees in the state. By 2008, employer non-subscribers had shrunk to 33%, but their percentage of the state’s total workers had grown to 25%. No one knows for sure, but estimates are that as many as 114,000 Texas employers have opted-out.
Until now, with the exception of two academic studies, one in 1996 examining lost injury days, the other, a 2010 survey of large, multi-state non-subscribers, no one has ever fully examined the Texas opt-out phenomenon. But, with the release today of the 87-page “Workers’ Compensation Opt-Out: Can Privatization Work? The Texas Experience and the Oklahoma Proposal,” that has changed.
Funded by the big TPA, Sedgwick CMS, published by the New Street Group and written by Primary Researcher Peter Rousmaniere and former Risk & Insurance editor and New Street Group founder Jack Roberts, this thorough, well-researched and entirely lucid analysis is certain to propel the opt-out debate now and in the foreseeable future.
In Texas, It’s 1910 All Over Again
To get a grasp of the back-to-the-future Texas opt-out, think 1910, the year before states began enacting workers’ compensation laws, the grand bargain in which employers promised to replace lost wages and cover medical costs due to injury and workers agreed not to sue employers when the workers were injured on the job.
Lots of employers buy workers’ comp in Texas, but for those who don’t it’s 1910 all over again with virtually no state oversight. Let me be clear about that: In Texas, there is no requirement for non-subscribers to pay for work injuries in any way. There is one important difference, however. The Texas legislature has statutorily removed the three major defenses used by employers prior to workers’ comp statutes being enacted to defend themselves against worker suits: contributory negligence, assumption of risk and the negligence of fellow employees. Also, without workers’ comp, there can be no “exclusive remedy,” and for non-subscribers there isn’t. Large non-subscribers, such as Costco, have been very creative in dealing with that.
Rousmaniere and Roberts discovered that Texas opt-out was a bit of a carnival sideshow until ten to fifteen years ago when large employers like Costco, whose program they analyze in depth, cottoned on to the idea that they could provide a sleek, fast-moving, common-sensible injury benefit management system if they wove it into their ERISA plans. ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, is a federal program which allows employers to design their own benefit systems, and substantially more than a cottage industry has evolved in Texas to help them do that for worker injuries. The operable phrase in that last sentence is “design their own.”
Designing Their Own
Suppose someone, your boss for example, said to you, “There’s no more workers’ comp. Design me a plan that will provide our workers who get injured immediate medical care and wage replacement. Make worker participation mandatory. Keep the administration to nothing more than what is absolutely needed for it to run smoothly, and, before I forget, keep all the lawyers out of it.”
What would you do? Well, large employers in Texas have had about fifteen years to think about that, and at least one of them, Costco, has created the ideal program I would design myself if I had a magic wand. I say “at least one,” because Costco is the only employer Rousmaniere and Roberts point to, although they do report on interviews with many professionals involved in Texas opt-out. They also suggest that Costco is fairly typical of the large employer opt-out experience.
After much research and planning, Costco became a non-subscriber in 2007. At that time, the company operated 15 large warehouses throughout Texas, carried a payroll of $87 million and employed about 4,000 workers. Its loss costs had grown to around $150 per employee, or 97 cents per hundred dollars of payroll. In the four years following non-subscription, losses fell to 46 cents per hundred dollars of payroll, a decline of 52%, with high employee satisfaction for the system.
Here are the main points of Costco’s worker injury benefit program, and remember, Costco was able to start with a blank piece of paper:

  • Work must be the “sole cause” of injury, not just a “contributory factor.” More about this below.
  • Injuries “must” be reported by end of shift, but in no case later than 24 hours after happening. Failure to do this will negate any benefits. Workers who don’t report in time are on their own; most use group health to cover medical costs, but, as one can imagine, a worker is more likely to win the Powerball than to not report within 24 hours.
  • Employees receive a taxable 80% of pre-injury wages with no waiting period. They’re paid from day one.
  • Upon hiring, workers are required to accept binding arbitration for disputed claims, and Costco picks the arbitrators. If unsatisfied with the arbitrator’s ruling, employees do have the option of bringing suit for employer negligence in civil court, but since 2007 only three such suits have been brought; two were settled modestly, and the third is pending
  • Chiropractic care is not allowed (Costco’s analysis of its losses concluded that excessive chiropractic care was a major driver of loss costs and unnecessary for employee recovery)
  • There are no permanent partial disability awards
  • Wage and medical benefits end after 156 weeks, but, in rare cases, future medicals can be settled (Rousmaniere and Roberts don’t address this, but I’m wondering about the degree to which CMS plans on extending its long, bony Medicare fingers into this pie)
  • Costco carefully picked an emergency care and specialist medical provider network comprised of highly reputable physicians, with as many as possible being board-certified occupational medical physicians. Costco routinely pays its providers full invoiced charges
  • If employees fail to follow through on medical recommendations or miss appointments for no good reason, benefits are terminated
  • For the rare event when injuries extend beyond 156 weeks, Costco has purchased insurance to cover the tail
  • Because any disputes go quickly to arbitration, attorney involvement is nearly non-existent

With loss costs reduced by 52% and employee satisfaction high, Costco obviously has a winning program. Costco has seamlessly woven injury benefits into its ERISA plan, blending them with its group health and short and long-term disability programs.
One thing that Costco wrestles with is co-morbidity. Imagine a Type-1 diabetic warehouse worker without safety shoes who drops some heavy object on his or her foot. Because of the diabetes, the foot is much more susceptible to infection, which actually happens. Then, because diabetes seriously inhibits healing, the infection worsens, and the foot is amputated. In statutory workers’ comp, this would be covered, but what about at Costco. I asked Peter Rousmaniere about this. He wrote back:

“You are right, this would be excluded… With Obamacare assuring universal health coverage, the opt-out employer’s message will be something like, “Don’t expect indemnity payments for a work injury if there is a good chance that your personal health condition will contribute to it.”

Rousmaniere admits that this “sounds draconian,” but he believes that this issue, as well as what to do about degenerative conditions, such as what to do about the 55-year old wall board hanger whose rotator cuff finally gives out, will gradually self correct with help from the ADA as well as the Affordable Care Act. The jury on this is decidedly out. But, just for a moment, imagine that he’s right. What we could be moving toward, after decades of failed experiments, is the first manageable and potentially successful version of 24-hour care.
The Other Side of the Coin
One thing is clear from the Rousmaniere and Roberts study: Costco and other large employers like Target and Safeway, two other non-subscribers, have the resources and core values necessary to provide compassionate care for injured workers while bringing them back to work as fast as medically possible in a businesslike way. But what about Kenny’s CITGO, down the street on the corner with five employees, all of whom, including Kenny, live paycheck to paycheck? And Kenny is just as free to non-subscribe as Costco.
Kenny and others like him are the Third World of non-subscription. Operating with no regulatory or legal oversight by the state, he can do what he pleases or what he perceives he can afford, which is probably not much. If one of his workers is injured, and Kenny decides to offer nothing in the way of injury benefits, the worker is on his own. He can certainly sue Kenny for employer negligence, and Kenny won’t have those three pre-workers’ comp era defenses to rely on. However, no attorney is going to take the employee’s case because Kenny won’t have the resources to pay if he loses, which he probably would. But, to quote Rousmaniere and Roberts, “That is a hollow victory, indeed.”
And on a grander scale, what about the large employer with significant resources, but who also may have more than a bit of malevolence in its DNA and wants to play schoolyard bully (see Massey Energy)? In an environment without one scintilla of regulation will the bully treat workers fairly?
The Oklahoma Proposal
After studying the lay of the land for the Texas opt-out and seeing where the Punji Pits are (see Kenny’s CITGO and Massey Energy), Oklahoma legislators crafted a remarkable piece of opt-out legislation that narrowly lost 42 to 50 in the Oklahoma House of Representatives in late April, 2012.
The Oklahoma proposed legislation would have corrected many of the perceived flaws in the Texas opt-out system. For example, Oklahoma would require any employer choosing to opt-out to provide similar, in some cases better, benefits than the statutory system. Also, injury benefits would be required to be part of an ERISA-approved plan, although there is significant uncertainty if this provision would withstand a constitutionality challenge. Further, employers applying to opt-out would have to pay a fee of $1,500 annually to do so. This would more than likely eliminate the Kennys of the world, employers who just don’t have the resources to “pay to play.”
Rousmaniere and Roberts expect Oklahoma legislators to do some tinkering and re-file during 2013. They think there is a good chance that this time the legislation will pass. Whether Governor Mary Fallin, who campaigned on a platform of workers’ comp reforms, will sign it is another matter.
Summary
This 87-page report is a Herculean effort, and, in my view, the worker’s compensation insurance industry owes Rousmaniere and Roberts a huge debt for spending close to a year to produce it. Sedgwick should be commended for funding it. Perhaps we can forgive Rousmaniere for a bit of acquired bias, but he’s seen, up close, what a conscientious, fair-minded employer can do if given the chance. I come away from his report finding myself agreeing with him as he wrote me the other day: “Every state should offer and every medium and large sized employer should consider opt -out.” But to this I add, “With a healthy dose of regulatory and state oversight. Not everyone is Costco.”

Health Wonk Review and assorted news of note

Thursday, April 12th, 2012

Brad Wright of Wright on Health tees up all the health wonkery this week as he hosts Health Wonk Review: A Masterful Edition.
Texas – Texas does things differently and their work comp program is true to course. Employers are not mandated to have workers comp insurance – they can opt out. According to a 2010 survey, 15% of businesses with 500+ employees choose to opt out. And now Walmart is opting out of work comp in Texas. See more on this at PropertyCasualyt360, including a graph of market share for the top 10 insurers comparing 2010 to 2011: Concerns Arise over Texas Workers’ Comp. State System After Walmart Drops Out
Mississippi reform – Mississippi is working on workers comp reform and we note that one provision about “medical proof” establishes a pretty high bar to hurdle for some injuries; for example, a back injury: “It also would require a worker to provide the employer with medical proof that an injury or illness is a direct result of the job if the worker’s claim is contested.”
Dirty Business – Is workers’ comp dirty? Some people seem to think so and Dave DePaolo considers whether there’s more to the frequent use of the term than coincidence. See Work Comp and Dirt – Do They Have to be Synonymous?
Florida drug warsTampa Bay Times says that drugstores are the new focus of painkiller investigations. From the article: “The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration says that in 2009 no Walgreens retail pharmacies were listed among the DEA’s top 100 Florida purchasers of oxycodone — a key ingredient in OxyContin, Percocet and Percodan. / By 2011, 38 Walgreens made the list. By February, the total reached 53 of the top 100. So says a warrant filed last week in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. / In Fort Myers, the DEA says one Walgreens pharmacy sold more than 2.1 million oxycodone pills in 2011. That’s more than 22 times the oxycodone sales at the same pharmacy two years earlier.”
Healthcare’s 1%Who are the chronically costly? The costliest 1% of patients consume one-fifth of all health care spending in the U.S., according to federal data. Doug Trapp of amednews digs into the data to profile the most costly patients and where so much of the medical spend goes.
From the courts – Fred Hosier of SafetyNewsAlert has an interesting post about whether workers comp will be on the hook for prescribed drug’s side effects. He cites a case related to a West Palm Beach police officer who has filed for additional workers’ comp benefits for the treatment of his gynecomastia, an excess growth of breast tissue, a side effect of medication he was prescribed to treat a work-related injury. Initially denied, an appeals court has reopened his claim for review by an expert medical advisor.
Occupational Medicine – It’s been a bit since we visited the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) site. ACOEM offers up a few new guides, and a revision of an older guide – Fatigue Risk Management in the Workplace (PDF), Guidance to Prevent Occupational Noise-Induced Hearing Loss and Guidance for the Chronic Use of Opioids.
Affordable Care Act – At Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review, Bob Laszewski looks at what individual health insurance might cost if the court strikes the mandate down and still requires insurers to cover everyone. Hint: a lot.
Briefly….

Health Wonk Review’s Health Policy Heat Wave and assorted work comp news briefs

Thursday, August 4th, 2011

Joe Paduda has posted a steamy Health Policy Heat Wave edition of Health Wonk Review over at Managed Care Matters. He notes that “Far from the summer doldrums, activity related to the debt limit, IPAB, Medicare reform and Health Exchanges is at a late-September pace.” Get in on the action, Joe always hosts a lively and informed edition.
Coming & Going – Roberto Ceniceros discusses the compensability case of a NC public school principal who was shot while driving to work. This is an interesting case because the principal was conducting phone business on a school-issued phone while commuting and he was also paid for travel expenses. He was awarded benefits, but the case is headed for appeals court. Ceniceros notes that injuries that occur during a commute generally are not compensable. He also notes that this might be some of the earliest case law on this issue. And with the brave new world of ubiquitous work enabled by mobile devices, it surely won’t be the last.
Radical change – Peter Rousmaniere talks about the recent Illinois workers’ comp reform and the radical change that the reform signified for workers’ comp, change that he notes has largely gone unnoticed. He discusses two significant issues that surfaced in the reform: the “nuclear option,” which Rousmaniere noted “freaked out almost everyone” – yet despite the dramatic language, an opt-out or non-subscribe program has long existed in Texas. The second issue that he notes is “an easy-to-overlook provision” that allows for union carve outs, which he discusses in greater detail. Peter’s take on all things workers’ comp is always well worth reading.
FL CFO tackles check-cashing fraudWorkCompWire reports that the Florida CFO will be reviewing check cashing services for collusion in workers’ comp fraud, which is said to be diverting more than a billion dollars from Florida’s economy. According to CFO Jeff Atwater, this latest workers’ compensation premium scheme is highly organized and orchestrated by individuals who know the construction and subcontracting industry and are intent on evading payment of workers’ compensation premiums.
MA AG recoups millions in drug overcharges – In the latest of a series of settlements, Rite-Aid will pay $2.1 Million to resolve allegations of prescription drug overcharges. The settlement is the 5th in a series of similar settlements, the result of an investigation by Attorney General Coakley’s office into prescription drug overcharges by pharmacies to public entities under the workers compensation insurance system. Settlements now total $7.9 million. Walgreens recently settled for for $2.8 million. Other pharmacies with settlements include CVS, Shaws Supermarkets, and Stop & Shop. Recouped money will be returned to cities and towns.
OH BWC publishes Facebook fraud page – If you commit workers comp fraud in Ohio, you may find your photo on Facebook. Yesterday, we posted about workers’ comp and social media, so we were interested to see that the Ohio Bureau of Workers Comp has launched a special investigations Facebook page. It will include news on recent investigatory action, a most-wanted section and a link to report fraud. The page can be found at www.facebook.com/ohiobwcfraud
World’s scariest job? – If not the scariest, it certainly is a contender: Chinese Road Workers. For other scary jobs, see our post on the workers on the cruise from Hell and the untethered tower workers. I’ll stick with blogging, thanks.
Quick takes

Health Wonk Review, Illinois reform, Missouri SIF, mobile risks & more news notes

Thursday, June 9th, 2011

Health Wonk Review – John Irvine & Matthew Holt host a hefty edition of Health Wonk Review over at The Health Care Blog – lots of good health wonkery there!
Illinois work comp reform – After all the sturm und drang in the Illinois reform process, we’ve had a breakthrough … a reform bill finally passed on the last day of the legislative session. In a Tale of Persuasion, AP’s Zachary Colman takes you step by step through the painful process. And at Managed Care Matters, Joe Paduda offers an excellent rundown of some of the key provisions in the Illinois work comp reform bill.
In other Illinois news, the matter of $10 million in repetitive stress claims filed by Menard County prison guards has taken some new twists. The Illinois house recently passed a bill requiring the release of the related workers’ comp test records in compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. A report obtained through the FOIA shows that locking and unlocking prison cells didn’t injure the guards.
Missouri’s second injury fund woesInjured workers in Missouri are being left in the lurch, according to a story in stltoday.com. about the state’s troubled Second Injury Fund Roberto Ceniceros posts more about Missouri’s financially-ill second injury fund.
Mobile risks – Andrew Simpson writes about the increased workers comp exposure as more workers go mobile in Insurane Journal. In the past, the workplace was a clearly defined place and the hours of operation were also clearly defined, but as more and more workers go mobile, things are much less clearly defined – the lines between professional and personal life are blurring. Plus, employers are often supplying the mobile devices to workers, increasing their exposure to claims that occur when off site or off the clock. “Insurance claims professionals say claims made by workers injured while doing things where the relation to their employment is unclear are on the rise and the increasing use of mobile devices is challenging traditional notions of work-related injuries.”
Workplace violence factorsThe Workplace Violence Blog posts about the prevalence of workplace violence as evidenced by a Society of Human Resource Management survey, and states that “Approximately $55 billion a year is lost to litigation awards, property damage and lost productivity from workplace violence. It is estimated that productivity can drop as much as 50% in the six to eight weeks following a workplace violence incident.” The post includes seven common organizational factors that contribute tow workplace violence.
Industry growth – Insurance is one industry that is poised for growth. According to a recent research report issued by IBISWorld, employment in TPAs and and claims adjusting is set to grow 5.7% annually between now and 2016. “Other industries in the IBISWorld top 10 fastest-growing for the next few years include sustainable building material manufacturers, multi-family home builders, used car dealers, remediation and environmental cleanup services.”
MRSA facts from the CDC – From the CDC, MRSA and the workplace, including a list of frequently asked questions. Staph infections, including antibiotic resistant MRSA, MRSA skin infections can occur anywhere. However, the CDC notes that some settings have factors that make it easier for MRSA to be transmitted. These factors, referred to as the 5 C’s, are as follows: Crowding, frequent skin-to-skin Contact, Compromised skin (i.e., cuts or abrasions), Contaminated items and surfaces, and lack of Cleanliness. Locations where the 5 C’s are common include schools, dormitories, military barracks, households, correctional facilities, and daycare centers.

Illinois Reforms: Who Blinks First?

Tuesday, May 31st, 2011

The brinksmanship continues in Illinois. A moderately effective reform bill passed the senate but has been defeated in the house by Republicans, who seek stronger ways to limit compensability. As a result, the Dems are moving forward with the Doomsday option: a bill to abolish workers comp and send each and every claim into the court system. Wow, that’s one way to make everyone miserable, above all, injured workers looking for a reliable safety net.
Among other things, the defeated reform bill would have reduced the medical fee schedule by 30 percent, thereby saving (theoretically) $500m to $700m per year. The reduction sounds harsh, but in practice, fee schedules are fluid. For top specialists, the fees are almost always negotiated upward; for run-of-the-mill practitioners – or the Dr. Feelgoods with their pockets full of pills – they can take it or leave it. Lowered fee schedules provide payers with leverage to find the best available doctors – not necessarily a bad thing.
Who Blinks?
At the moment, legislators are playing a classic game of chicken: if we can’t reach agreement on reforms, we’ll blow the whole thing up. Given that Democrats are behind the Doomsday option, I doubt they will allow things to reach that point, as it would be a disaster for workers. But they are running out of time.
The potential good news for Illinois employers (and there isn’t much when it comes to comp) is that even the modest changes in the reform bill will begin to reduce the cost of workers comp, currently the third highest in the nation. The bad news is that further reforms will be needed, most of all, perhaps, involving the de-politicizing of comp in a hyper-political state. My advice to the legislators is simple: take it incrementally. Pass the reform bill pretty much as is and revisit the issue in the next session. In this precarious situation, half a loaf is better than none.

Illinois Comp: The Nuclear Option?

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

Illinois is struggling mightily with its bloated workers comp system. Currently ranked 3rd highest for overall cost in the Oregon study, the governor and legislature are under intense pressure from the business community to lower the cost of comp insurance. Aiming its powerful bulldozers at the state capital, the Caterpiller Company has threatened to move their business somewhere else if reforms are not implemented immediately. In exploring all options, the legislature has gone so far as to think the unthinkable: abolishing workers comp.
In looking for ways to save money, Illinois does what all states do: first, identify the cost drivers and then try to change the statute to bring down costs. Among the hot issues on the table are the medical fee schedule (too generous), employee choice of doctor (too flexible), duration of benefits (too long), causation (too vague). Ah, behind every cost driver is a vested interest (perhaps literally vested, with many of the lobbyists wearing three piece suits). The common denominator among all states struggling with high comp costs is the omni-present stakeholder, who is deeply committed to the status quo.
Governor Quinn would like to see a number of reforms, including the capping of carpal tunnel benefits, denying claims where employee intoxication is a significant factor, attacking fraud (see our blog on Illinois’s dubious arbitration services), capping wage differential benefits at age 67 or five years after an injury, and implementing utilization review for physical therapy, chiropractic and occupational therapy services.
Going Nuclear
The Illinois legislature is so frustrated with the slow progress and with stakeholder resistance to change, they are now threatening to blow up the entire system. Interesting to note, this pressure is coming from the Democrats. John Bradley (D-Marion) has filed House 1032, a bill to repeal the workers comp act and send all workplace-injury issues into the court system. Should this happen, Illinois will find itself in the world prior to 1912, when injured workers had to sue their employers and could collect benefits only if their injuries were caused by someone other than themselves. They would collect no benefits while awaiting adjudication of their claims. They would be out of work and out of luck.
In all likelihood, repeal of workers comp is not a serious option in Illinois; it’s a political strategy for getting the attention of inertia-bound legislators. But the prospect of abolition does raise an interesting issue. Workers comp came to America 100 years ago. By the end of the World War II, every state had implemented the program.
What if there were no workers comp programs today? What if each state were starting from the beginning and tackling the issue of protection for injured workers? I find it hard to imagine that state legislatures would be willing to implement a program, totally funded by employers, that provides indemnity for lost wages and 100 percent medical benefits for injured workers. Why so generous? Why so inclusive? It’s too expensive. It will create disincentives for working. The cost will drive employers out of business or out of state.
With today’s acrimonious, ideology-driven debates, workers comp would be a hard sell. That’s too bad, for despite its problems and inequities, despite the wide variations in benefits and costs from state to state, comp is a compelling example of effective social engineering. In Illinois, cooler heads will likely avoid the meltdown option. To be sure, Illinois comp is a mess, but the alternative – a workplace without workers comp – would be far worse.

Montana Reforms: Rocky Mountain High Rates on the Way Down?

Wednesday, April 13th, 2011

In the ever-useful Oregon rankings, Montana has the dubious distinction of being the second most expensive state for workers compensation. Alaska, with its vast spaces and compelling views of the former Soviet Union, is number one. Gov. Brian Schweitzer recently signed HB 334, a bill designed to lower the mountainous rates. Only time will tell…
It’s always interesting to see how a state legislature tackles high comp costs. In Montana, they set out to take a balanced approach, narrowing eligibility but enhancing benefits. While the legislators are patting themselves on the back for achieving their goals, unions have complained that too much of the cost reduction comes at the expense of workers. It usually does.
Here’s a glimpse of the bill in action, trying to reduce employer liability for specific exposures:

(2) An injury does not arise out of and in the course of employment when the employee is:
(a) on a paid or unpaid break, is not at a worksite of the employer, and is not performing any specific tasks for the employer during the break; or
(b) engaged in a social or recreational activity, regardless of whether the employer pays for any portion of the activity. The exclusion from coverage of this subsection (2)(b) does not apply to an employee who, at the time of injury, is on paid time while participating in a social or recreational activity or whose presence at the activity is required or requested by the employer. For the purposes of this subsection (2)(b), “requested” means the employer asked the employee to assume duties for the activity so that the employee’s presence is not completely voluntary and optional and the injury occurred in the performance of those duties.

At times the revised law reads like a monologue, with legislators trying to anticipate the circumstances of an injury and limiting the comp system in its ability to award benefits.
Rate Pain
The Oregon study illustrates some of the exorbitant (2008) rates paid by Montana employers. For a point of reference, we compare these rates (per $100 of payroll) to those in Massachusetts. (The MA rates are in brackets):
Carpentry shop (2802) $17.85 [$4.53]
Plumbing NOC (5183) $10.44 [$4.10]
Carpentry NOC (5403) $26.91 [$11.80]
Clerical (8810) $0.85 [$0.13]
Massachusetts employers, in a state with six times the population of Montana, spend about $650 million for comp premiums. Montana’s current tab – $400 million – is expected to drop about 25 percent as a result of the new law. Even if you reduce the above Montana rates by 25 percent, employers are still confronted with big premium bills. Mount Comp might be substantially lower than it was, but it’s still a grueling climb.

Setting Limits in California

Wednesday, June 4th, 2008

California had a long-standing reputation as a workers compensation nightmare: not because injured employees received generous benefits – they did not – but because doctors and lawyers exploited the system to generate enormous fees. Governor Schwarzenegger, AKA the Terminator, put an end to that with his extensive 2003-04 reforms. In the effort to contain costs, the reforms for the first time brought managed care tools into the comp system. The bottom line for employers has improved dramatically.
Among the many provisions of the reform was a limit on physical and occupational therapy treatments for an injury. Injured workers are now limited to 24 visits. Jose Facundo-Guerrero, a worker at a nursery in Half Moon Bay, challenged the limits on constitutinal grounds, alleging that he was entitled to the “full provision for such medical, surgical, hospital and other remedial treatment” promised in the CA Constitution. Jose had visited his chiropractor 76 times and he wanted the carrier to pay.
The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco has upheld the limits in the comp reform package. They found that the Constitution does not require “unlimited” treatments and leaves the details up to the legislature.
Arbitrary Limits
There is no question that the 24 visit limit is arbitrary. This one size does not fit all. On the other hand, chiropractic treatment can be addicting. It feels good. Jose went 76 times and might well have continued on indefinitely, had the treatments been compensable.
One aspect of the reform language caught my eye: the 24 visit limit can be exceeded if the employer agrees. This raises an intriguing possibility. If valued employees require extensive physical therapy that goes beyond the arbitrary limit, enlightened employers might well authorize the carrier to cover a specific number of additional visits. This makes sense as long as it keeps the employee happy and productive.
As with so many workers comp issues, law makers struggle to find the middle ground between no limits and severely curtailed treatments. What’s missing is reliable and effective lines of communication among employers, their employees, medical providers and insurance carriers. The rigid limits on treatment in California are apparently legal, but that does not mean they are fair. There is no question that the reforms of 2003-04 have reduced costs. Ironically, injured workers were not the primary beneficiaries of the state’s pre-reform, out-of-control comp system. And it now appears likely that these same workers will pay the price for reforms as well.