Workers compensation insurance covers the cost of medical care and rehabilitation for workers injured on the job. It also compensates them for lost wages and provides death benefits for their dependents if they are killed in work-related accidents, including terrorist attacks. The workers compensation system is the “exclusive remedy” for on-the-job injuries suffered by employees. As part of the social contract embedded in each state’s law, in all states except Texas, where employers may opt out of the state’s workers compensation system, the employee gives up the right to sue the employer for injuries caused by the employer’s negligence and in return receives workers compensation benefits regardless of who or what caused the accident, as long as it happened in the workplace as a result of and in the course of workplace activities. There were 114,000 employers in Texas that did not participate in the workers compensation program, according to Best’s News Service, April 10, 2012, see also Background section of this report.
Workers compensation systems vary from state to state. State statutes and court decisions control many aspects, including the handling of claims, the evaluation of impairment and settlement of disputes, the amount of benefits injured workers receive and the strategies used to control costs. From 2010 to 2011 maximum income benefits for total disability increased an average 3.09 percent. The average maximum weekly benefit in 2011 was $806.62 according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce 2011 Analysis of Workers Compensation Laws.
Workers compensation costs are one of the many factors that influence businesses to expand or relocate in a state, generating jobs. When premiums rise sharply, legislators often call for reforms. The last round of widespread reform legislation started in the late 1980s. In general, the reforms enabled employers and insurers to better control medical care costs through coordination and oversight of the treatment plan and return-to-work process and to improve workplace safety. Some states are now approaching a crisis once again as new problems arise.
According to NCCI’s State of the Line analysis, in 2011 workers compensation premiums for private carriers and state funds increased to $36.3 billion in 2011, a 7.4 percent jump from 2010 and the first since 2005. (For private carriers alone, premiums were $32.2 billion, compared with $29.9 billion in 2010.) Because its premiums are directly linked to employment levels and wages, workers compensation insurance is the line most significantly affected by the economic slowdown and nascent recovery. Premiums dropped 27 percent from 2006 to 2010.
- The combined ratio, the percentage of each premium dollar spent on claims and expenses, was unsustainably high at 115, NCCI says, the same as in 2010, and the highest combined ratio for any of the major lines of commercial insurance for the third straight year. A combined ratio of 100 or higher means that the industry is paying out more in claims than it is collecting in premiums.
- Faced with the worst results in the past 10 years, according to Fitch Ratings, insurers are raising rates. Industry observers attribute the poor financial results largely to rising medical expenses and recession-related conditions: sluggish premium growth and injured workers’ inability to find work or return to their former workplace, which can increase the duration of claims.
- Obesity has an impact on the cost of claims, according to a study by the NCCI. The duration of lost income claims was five times greater for the most severely obese workers than for workers who were not obese but filed comparable claims. The data came for insurers operating in 40 states. The study’s findings are similar to those of a 2007 Duke University Medical School report on its own employees.
- Prescription drug costs now represent about 19 percent of workers compensation medical costs nationwide, according to the NCCI. One cost driver is doctor-dispensed repackaged drugs. The Illinois Workers Compensation Commission has been studying the issue in order to address the significant mark-ups on doctor-dispensed repackaged drugs over pharmacy-dispensed drugs. The commission found that drug repackaging firms often obtain a new National Drug Code number with a much higher unit price. One workers compensation group found that the average repackaged drug costs $115, a 236 percent increase over the average price of $48.65 for the same drugs not repackaged. The commission proposed that drugs dispensed outside of a licensed pharmacy be billed at the average wholesale price plus a dispensing fee of $4.18. The change was adopted by the state’s Joint Committee on Administrative Rules in November 2012. Currently, three states, Massachusetts, New York and Texas, do not allow physicians to dispense repackaged drugs and other states are considering such a move.
- The Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) recently published a study of the impact of a change in the law in California in 2007. Critics of proposed regulations on doctor-dispensed repackaged drugs feared that injured workers would not receive needed medications if doctors stopped dispensing them when it was less profitable to do so. Data from California show very few doctors stopped prescribing (55 percent before the law passed as compared with 53 percent three years later) so injured workers had similar access to medications but at a lower cost.
- Another cost driver is the growing long-term use of narcotic painkillers. A new study by WCRI, Longer-Term Use of Opioids, found that nearly one in 12 injured workers who were prescribed opioids were still on the drugs three to six months later, highlighting a problem that contributes to overuse: failure of doctors to implement recommendations for drug testing and psychological evaluation, two steps that might help reduce the abuse of such drugs. A report from the insurance broker Lockton notes that opioids account for about 25 percent of workers compensation prescription costs and 35 percent for claims over three years old. Indirect costs to society include workers’ failure to return to work because they are addicted to the drugs. The Lockton study says there should be an evaluation of the validity of continuing to prescribe opioids when medical reports do not indicate progress in work and life skill functions and a reduction in pain.
At the end of August on the last day of the 2012 session, legislators passed SB 863, a bill developed by labor groups and some large self-insured employers that have been meeting since last fall to put together a legislative plan. Supporters claim that the measure will produce savings of $880 million, more than enough to offset the $610 million in increased payments to workers receiving permanent disability benefits. However, while praising the reforms, industry observers said it is too early to say whether the savings projected will actually occur. In the past, reform legislation has sometimes produced unintended results such the reduction in benefits for permanently injured workers that came about as a result of the 2004 reforms pushed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. The California Workers Compensation Bureau said in October that it expected savings of 4.4 percent on 2013 policies, somewhat less than its earlier estimate of 4.9 percent.
- At the end of November, State Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones approved a 2013 advisory rate increase of $2.56 per $100 of payroll for policies renewing or starting on or after January1, 20132. The commissioner explained his action by acknowledging the “steady and dramatic” increase in the cost of the state’s workers compensation system. He noted that insurers are currently paying out more in claims than they are collecting in premium and that the state cannot afford to overestimate the potential savings the new law will produce.
- New York:
Data from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) shows that the reforms enacted in 2007 are beginning to achieve some of their goals, particularly bringing maximum disability benefit levels for injured workers more in line with national averages. The 2007 law also reduced the time injured workers receive permanent partial benefits, established medical treatment guidelines and required limits on prices for pharmaceutical products. The WCRI notes that the cost of pills covered by the pharmaceutical fee schedule has decreased by 10 to 20 percent.
Business groups and regulators are again pressing lawmakers to consider ways of lowering the cost of workers compensation, which in some cases is as much as five times higher than in neighboring states, according to the state’s Chamber of Commerce. Insurance Commissioner John Doak has said that the high costs are pushing employers to think about relocating. The high costs are attributed by some legislators to the adversarial nature of the system, which provides lawyers with incentives to drive a workers disability rating higher to increase lost income benefits. Oklahoma’s level of attorney involvement is 50 percent higher than the national average.
- In 2012, a bill that would have allowed employers with more than 50 workers that met certain criteria to opt out of the state’s workers compensation system failed because small businesses feared that the thresholds would exclude them, see also State Funds, below.
- Insurance industry observers said that under the earlier opt-out plan, employee benefits would have been reduced substantially. Disputed claims would have been subject to mandatory arbitration or mediation and employers would have been able to avoid the Workers Compensation Court and state insurance and workers compensation regulation.
- Oklahoma is one of a handful of states where the courts run the workers compensation system. Legislation modifying the court system and instituting other cost saving measures was passed in 2010 and 2011 but critics, including those promoting the current opt-out plan, say the system is still too expensive. Among the options being considered for the 2013 legislative session are an opt-out system with essentially no thresholds and an administrative system with a three-member Workers Compensation Commission to replace the current court-based system. The commission would be made up of a doctor, an attorney and an insurance professional with five years of experience in dealing with workers compensation issues. Gov. Fallin has called the system’s high costs an obstacle to job creation.
- Under the 2012 proposal, employers that opted out would have had to provide an alternative benefits plan that included medical, disability and death benefits for injured workers and that would comply with ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, the federal law that sets minimum standards for most pension, welfare and health plans offered by private industry. The legislation would have made the ERISA-compliant plans the exclusive remedy for opt-out companies, preventing workers from suing their employers in state court. The exclusive remedy is at the heart of the workers compensation social compact, see the introduction to this report. In Texas, the only state to allow employers to opt out of the workers compensation system, nonsubscribers, employers that elect not to participate, are fully liable under the tort system for workplace accidents and can be sued for negligence.
Major reforms were enacted in 2005 that transferred responsibility for workers compensation from a commission to the Texas Insurance Department, improved access to healthcare and advice for injured workers, promoted return-to-work programs, created medical treatment guidelines and raised injured workers’ benefits.
- The department publishes a biennial report on system improvements. Highlights of the 2012 report indicate that since 2003 to the end of 2011 rates have decreased almost 50 percent; the number of days lost from work due to work-related injuries fell from an average 97 days (median 26 days) in 2004 to 6.0 weeks (median 21 days); and the amount of time needed in 2011 to resolve medical disputes dropped significantly, with fee disputes taking 197 days instead of 335 days as they did in 2005, pre-authorization disputes 20 days instead of 59 and retrospective medical necessity disputes 31 days instead of123. The percentage of employers that participate in the program (i.e., became subscribers, see Background section) rose from 62 percent in 2004 to 67 percent in 2012. Only an estimated 19 percent of Texas employees (about 1.7 million workers) were employed by non-subscribing employers.
- State Funds, Competitive Funds:
Following the successful change over in West Virginia from a state-controlled workers compensation system to a private competitive market, several states, including Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma, all of which have workers compensation entities with some degree of state oversight that compete with the private market, have been looking into some form of privatization. Some impetus for the sale of these entities is the poor local economy and the resulting budget deficits.
- Other states, such as Maryland, have been raiding the policyholder surplus of their state workers compensation funds to add to their states’ general funds. In May 2012, to end this practice, Maryland lawmakers agreed to privatize the State Fund, the largest workers compensation insurer in the state, converting it into a private company, Chesapeake Employers’ Insurance Co., effective October 2013.
- In Arizona, the legislature has agreed to privatize the State Compensation Fund, requiring the transaction to be completed by 2013. The fund had a market share of 31.5 percent in 2009, according to the state’s department of insurance.
- In Colorado, Pinnacol Assurance, a quasi-mutual company with almost 60 percent of the market, is also exempt from premiums taxes. A proposal to turn it into a mutual insurer that would also be the insurer of last resort was submitted to the governor in November 2011. The governor set up a task force composed of various stakeholders to review the proposal and make recommendations. Negotiations are continuing. An earlier recommendation from a legislative committee failed to gain support.
- In Oklahoma CompSource, which insures about 35 percent of the market, has a 5 percent advantage over private insurers because it does not pay premium taxes. A legislative task force studying the options voted 5 to 4 in favor of creating a mutual company, but the idea was dropped when opponents said that it would result in higher premiums for small businesses. Most of the businesses in the state are small, with 98 percent having fewer than 100 workers and 75 percent having fewer than 10, according to the State Chamber of Oklahoma.
- In Washington State, which has a monopolistic state fund, a ballot initiative that would have led to opening the market to private competition was defeated in the November 2010 elections. Voters rejected the initiative, I-1082, by a wide margin. The initiative was spearheaded by the Building Industry Association of Washington and endorsed by the National Federal of Independent Business. It would have created a task force on private competition to draw up legislation and make recommendations.
- In Ohio, which also has a monopolistic state fund, there has also been interest in allowing some form of competition from private insurers. In November 2009 the Senate voted to create a task force to evaluate the current system, compare it with competitive systems in other states and review the options. At a hearing held in August 2010, the president of the Insurance Information Institute, Robert Hartwig, suggested that the state’s monopolistic system is out of keeping with economic reality. There is no other type of liability insurance in the United States where the state is the sole provider of coverage although states have had ample opportunity to create such a system. Ohio voters rejected a ballot initiative on privatization in 1981. Ohio has the largest monopolistic state fund in the nation. It would require a constitutional amendment to totally privatize Ohio’s system.
- Meanwhile, in November 2011, the state introduced a new rating plan under which employers who adopt “best practices” aimed at reducing workplace injuries and getting workers back on the job faster can save money. Studies show that injured workers in Ohio take longer to get back to work than in other states, with the percentage who return within a year dropping from 75 percent to less than 69 percent over the past four years.
- The move to privatize comes at a time when state funds are growing. According to a new Conning Research & Consulting study, Workers Compensation State Funds: Evolution of a Competitive Force, state-backed workers compensation funds operate in 25 states and account for one-quarter ($11.3 billion in premiums) of the workers compensation market. While they generally have higher losses than private insurers (they are often the market of last resort, insuring high risk businesses that cannot find coverage in the private marketplace) these are offset by higher investment income and operating results comparable to private insurers, the study found. State funds also work closely with other government agencies, such as state occupational and health and safety associations, to reduce injuries.
- The Residual Market:
Market share of the residual market pools serviced by NCCI, which had been dropping, increased from 4.6 percent in 2010 to 5 percent in 2011. Premiums grew by 13 percent, reversing a trend of declining residual market premiums that began in 2005, according to NCCI. However, the pools remain small.
- Workplace Deaths and Injuries:
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) preliminary data show that 4,609 workers were killed on the job in 2011, slightly fewer than in 2010 (4,690) but far fewer than in 2008, when there were 5,071 workplace fatalities. The death rate for 2011 per 100,000 workers was 3.5, the same as in 2010 and 2009. Many experts attribute the significant drop over the last few years to the poor economy. Fewer people were working last year in jobs where many of the fatalities typically occur such as construction. Fatal accidents declined to 770, the lowest level since 2003. Fatal injuries for this group declined 48 percent from the high reported in 2006.
- Workplace injuries requiring days off work have declined significantly each year since 2002 when the BLS first started using current reporting requirements. BLS data show the rate per 10,000 full time employees was 117 in 2011, statistically unchanged from 2010. The median number of days off work was eight, the same as last year.
STATES WITH A STATE-RUN WORKERS COMPENSATION FUND
|Competitive with Private Insurers||Exclusive|
*Scheduled to be privatized by 2013.
**Compulsory for extra hazardous operations only. Employers with nonhazardous operations may insure with the state fund or opt to go without coverage.
WORKERS COMPENSATION LAWS FOR DOMESTIC WORKERS BY STATE (A)
As of September 2012
|Type of Law||Threshold for Compulsory Coverage|
|State||Excluded (b)||Voluntary (c)||Compulsory||Time Worked||Earnings||Other|
|CA||X||52 hours during 90 days prior to injury or exposure to disease||Or $100 during 90 days prior to injury or exposure to disease||Excludes a household worker employed by the worker’s parent, spouse or child|
|CO||X||40 hours per week or 5 days per week|
|CT||X||26 hours per week|
|DE||X||$750 per 3 months|
|DC||X||240 hours during quarter|
|HI||X||$225 per every quarter during preceding 12 months|
|IL||X||40 hours per every week for 13 weeks during year|
|IO||X||$1,500 during 12 weeks prior to injury|
|KS||X||Employer payroll over $20,000 in prior year for all workers|
|KY||X||2 employees, 40 hours per week|
|MD||X||$750 per quarter|
|MA||X||16 hours per week|
|MI||X||35 hours per every week for 13 weeks during preceding 52 weeks|
|MN||X||$1,000 in any 3 month period of current or previous year|
|NY||X||40 hours per week, non-farm|
|OH||X||$160 per quarter|
|OK||X||Employer payroll in preceding year of $10,000 per worker|
|SC||X||4 employees per employer; payroll more than $3,000 in previous year|
|SD||X||20 hours per week for more than 6 weeks in 13 weeks|
|UT||X||40 hours per week|
|WA||X||2 employees; 40 hours per week each|
- Domestic workers include household workers such as babysitters, housecleaners, gardeners, etc.; in some states excludes family members.
- Domestic workers are specifically excluded from the workers compensation system.
- Employers are permitted to provide workers compensation coverage voluntarily.
- Except for part-time babysitters and noncommercial cleaning persons.
- Elective or optional.
- Coverage is voluntary for domestic workers but on an elective basis, i.e., an employer may elect, in writing, prior to an accident, not to be subject to the law. However, this requirement renders the law compulsory in practice. In New Jersey, homeowners insurance policies must contain provisions covering domestic workers.
Source: “Workers Compensation: Exposure, Coverages, Claims,”
ISBN #0-923240-12-8. Standard Publishing Corp., Boston, MA. All rights reserved; PCI.
The Workers Compensation Social Contract: The industrial expansion that took place in the United States during the 19th century was accompanied by a significant increase in workplace accidents. At that time, the only way injured workers could obtain compensation was to sue their employers for negligence. Proving negligence was a costly, time-consuming effort, and often the court ruled in favor of the employer. But by the early 1900s, a state-by-state pattern of legislative proposals designed to compensate injured workers had begun to emerge.
Wisconsin enacted the first permanent workers compensation insurance law in 1911 (New York had enacted a law a year earlier but it was found unconstitutional), and by 1920 all but eight states had enacted similar laws. By 1949 all states had a workers compensation system that provided compensation to workers hurt on the job, regardless of who was at fault. The costs of medical treatment and wage loss benefits were the responsibility of the employer which were paid through the workers compensation system. As part of the compromise that made the employer liable for work-related injury and disease costs regardless of fault, the employee gave up the right to sue the employer for injuries caused by the employer’s negligence.
The scope of workers compensation coverage has broadened considerably since its early beginnings. In 1972, states amended their laws to meet performance standards recommended by the National Commission on State Workmen’s Compensation Laws. Many states took action not only to expand benefits but also to make the coverage applicable to classifications of employees not previously covered.
However, compensation levels are not uniform. In some states benefits are still inadequate, while in others, they are overly generous. Some states were slow in adopting the National Commission’s guidelines and have still not embraced the entire package of 19 recommendations published in 1972. Many states exempt employers with only a few workers (fewer than five, four or three, depending on the state) from mandatory coverage laws. A major benefits issue still to be resolved in some states is the imbalance between levels of compensation for various degrees of impairment; permanent partial disabilities tend to be overcompensated and permanent total disability undercompensated.
Some coverage is provided by federal programs. For example, the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers Compensation Act, passed in 1927 and substantially amended in 1984, provides coverage for certain maritime employees and the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act protects workers hired by the U.S. government.
Employers can purchase workers compensation coverage from private insurance companies or state-run workers agencies, known as state funds. In 20 states, according to a Conning study, “Workers Compensation State funds, Evolution of a Competitive Force,” state funds compete with private insurers and in four states, the state is the sole provider of workers compensation insurance. (See list at the end of Recent Development section of this report.) Along with residual market pools, many state funds also function as the insurer of last resort for businesses that have difficulty getting coverage in the open market.
The only state in which workers compensation coverage is truly optional is Texas, where about one-third of the state’s employers are so-called nonsubscribers. In the event of a serious accident, those that opt out of the system can be sued by employees for failure to provide a safe workplace. The nonsubscribers tend to be smaller companies, but the percentage of larger companies opting out is growing. Some 25 percent of the state’s workers were employed by nonsubscribers in 2008, compared with 23 percent in 2006.
Some businesses finance their own workplace injury benefits through a system known as self-insurance. Large organizations with many employees can often estimate the cost of routine types of injuries. Self-insurance, along with large deductibles, which are in effect self-insurance, now account for more than one-third of traditional market premium. Put another way, workers compensation accounts for more than 40 percent of the alternative market, see also Captives report. Businesses that self-insure their workers compensation losses must prove that they are financially able to do so. They usually protect their assets by purchasing insurance coverage for catastrophic losses or losses in excess of a specific threshold.
About nine out of 10 people in the nation’s workforce are protected by workers compensation insurance. Laws vary by state for domestic workers, see chart, and at least 15 states do not require employers to provide workers compensation coverage to migrant and seasonal farm workers.
How the System Works: Workers compensation systems are administered by the individual states, generally by commissions or boards whose responsibility it is to ensure compliance with the laws, investigate and decide disputed cases, and collect data. In most states employers are required to keep records of accidents. Accidents must be reported to the workers compensation board and to the company’s insurer within a specified number of days.
Workers compensation covers an injured worker’s medical care and attempts to cover his or her economic loss. This includes loss of earnings and the extra expenses associated with the injury. Injured workers receive all medically necessary and appropriate treatment from the first day of injury or illness and rehabilitation when the disability is severe.
To rein in expenditures and improve cost effectiveness, many states have adopted cost control measures, including treatment guidelines that spell out acceptable treatments and diagnostic tests for specific injuries such as lower back injuries and fee schedules that set maximum payment amounts to doctors for certain types of care.
Most claims are medical only, but lost-time claims, those with both medical and lost income payments, though few, consume most resources. Claims are categorized according to the degree of impairment—partial or total disability—and whether the impairment is permanent or temporary. Cash benefits can include impairment benefits and, when the impairment causes a loss of income, disability or wage loss benefits.
Impairment can be defined in several ways. Payments may be based on a schedule or list of body parts covered and the benefits paid for a loss of that part. For injuries not on the schedule, benefit payments may be calculated according to the degree of impairment or the loss of future or current earnings capacity, often using the American Medical Association’s definitions.
Most states pay benefits for the duration of the injury. But some specify a maximum number of weeks, particularly for temporary disabilities. For workers with a total disability, the benefit amount is some percentage of the worker’s weekly wage (actual or state average). Cash benefits may not be paid until after a waiting period of several days.
Costs to Employers: Costs to employers include premiums, payments made under deductibles and the benefits and administrative costs incurred by employers that self-insure or fund their own benefit program. The percentage of total compensation costs that workers compensation premiums represent fluctuates. In the mid-1950s, private sector employers paid an average 0.5 percent of payroll for workers compensation. By 1970 this figure was 1 percent, escalating steeply in the 1980s and 1990s to a record high in 1994 of 2.99 percent. However, there is a wide variation in costs among states and industries, so that the highest rated (the inherently riskiest) groups could pay several hundred times that of the lowest rated (safest) groups, as a percentage of payroll. Also taken into account is the firm’s own safety record.
Insurance, particularly commercial insurance, is a cyclical industry marked by hard and soft markets. In 2000 as the economy expanded, premiums started rising, ushering in the hard market, when demand outstrips supply. In 2007, with a generally soft market for most types of commercial insurance and a weakening economy, premiums began dropping again. From December 2007 to mid-2009, as the recession caused payroll, the basis for computing workers compensation premiums, to drop significantly (3.6 percent) workers compensation insurers saw premiums contract. In fact, the recent recession had the most serious impact on workers compensation in terms of payroll in 60 years. In the recessions of the 1970s and 1980s, the impact was less severe because of continuous wage inflation. Inflation was not a factor in the 2007-2009 recession.
Claim Costs: As mentioned earlier, there are two components to workers compensation claims costs: payments for lost income, which are usually linked to a state’s average weekly wage, known as indemnity costs, and payments for medical care. Two decades ago, indemnity costs made up the greater part of total losses. In 1986 indemnity costs represented 55 percent of the total. By 1996 indemnity and medical had changed places, with indemnity at only 48 percent of losses. In 2008, as medical care costs continued to rise, indemnity accounted for 42 percent.
Growth in workers compensation medical costs for the most part has been much steeper than in the healthcare industry as a whole. The annual average rate of increase in workers compensation medical care costs was 3.9 percent from 1991 to 1995. Since then the rate of increase has more than doubled and, in most years, was more than twice the rate of increase in the medical Consumer Price Index (CPI). Between 2002 and 2007, the medical cost per lost-time claim — where the employee was forced to take time off work because of the injury as opposed to just seeking treatment for the injury—increased by 6.7 percent compared with an increase of 4.0 percent in the medical CPI. However, in 2009 workers compensation medical care costs increased by only 2 percent, compared with a rise in the medical care CPI of 3.4 percent.
NCCI Holdings suggests that much of the difference between the cost of a healthcare claim and a workers compensation claim is due to the volume, duration and mix of services used by injured workers and group health claimants.
But while the size of claims (dollar amount) has been climbing due to the increasing cost of medical treatment, the number of claims filed (frequency) has been dropping steadily as insurers and their policyholders focus on safety. The frequency of lost-time claims dropped by 54.9 percent from 1991 to 2008. NCCI also attributes recent declines in the frequency of accidents to the use of robots, which reduce workers’ exposure to hazardous activities; power-assisted devices that reduce physical stress, lighter and stronger materials; ergonomic designs that reduce strains; and cordless tools, which reduce the incidence of tripping over cords. Frequency declines, which first showed up among small employers are now evident also in large firms.
Insurance company financial results often report profitability in terms the combined ratio (the percentage of each premium dollar spent on claims and expenses). The combined ratio for workers compensation is reported in two different ways: by calendar year and by accident year. In 2008 the calendar year combined ratio started to deteriorate, moving from 99 in 2007 to 100 in 2008. The accident year combined ratio deteriorated more sharply going from 92 in 2007 to 101 in 2008, according to the NCCI. The accident year combined ratio hit a peak of 140 in 1999.
Calendar year results reflect claim payments and changes in reserves for accidents that happened that year or earlier. Insurance companies have to set aside reserves for accidents that have happened but where claims have not been settled. Workers compensation claims may not be settled for many years, if the accident victim needs increasingly more treatment, for example. Accident year results, in that they include only losses from a specific single year, may present a better picture of the industry’s performance at a given point in time.
Reducing Costs: Workers compensation system costs are rarely static. Reforms are implemented and then, over time, one or more element in these multifaceted systems get out of balance. Soon employers and legislators complain that the cost of coverage is hurting the state’s economy by reducing its ability to compete with other states for new job-producing opportunities.
In the 1980s, with a view to increasing competition within the insurance industry in order to bring down rates, legislation was introduced in more than a dozen states to change the method of establishing rates from administered pricing, where rating organizations recommended rates that included expenses and a margin for profit, to open competition. Now insurers base their rate filings on more of their own company’s specific data, rather than using industrywide figures in such areas as expenses and profit and contingency allowances. Rating organizations still provide industrywide data on “losses”—the costs associated with work-related accidents, which help small companies that lack access to large amounts of data.
More recently, states have begun to disband Second Injury Funds. Set up mostly after World War II, these funds were designed to protect employers that hire disabled workers from having to bear the full cost of the first disability when an injury that further disabled the worker occurred in their workplace. Many believe that these funds are now unnecessary in that passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act has made the protection they afford to disabled workers redundant. The Act protects injured workers from discrimination by employers. At least 10 states have repealed laws covering Second Injury Funds.
The aim of the workers compensation system is to help workers recover from work-related accidents and illnesses and to return to the workplace. A fast return to work is desirable from the employer and insurer’s viewpoint, lowering claim costs for the insurer but benefiting the worker too.
Research shows that the faster the insurer receives notice of an injury and can initiate medical treatment, the faster the injured worker recuperates and returns to work and the less likely he or she is to seek out an attorney for help in dealing with a claim. Studies also suggest that most people want to return to productive employment as soon as possible. Electronic communication has enhanced procedures to speed up the “first notice of claim” filing process to the workers compensation administrative office.
There are two important aspects to facilitating the return-to-work process. One involves getting the most effective medical care as soon as possible and reducing the emotional stress that may follow an accident. To help get medical treatment to the injured worker faster, some insurers help employers file promptly a “first notice of injury” with the state agency responsible for overseeing the workers compensation system, a step which triggers the claim process.
The other is to encourage employers to improve communications, first about the workers compensation system in advance of accidents—people who know what to expect and who receive medical attention promptly will recuperate faster and are less likely to turn to an attorney for help—and second when injured workers are off work, so that they feel that they are still part of the workplace team and are anxious to return. Insurers have also strengthened communications among all the parties involved in the case so that each knows how treatment is progressing.
Another aspect of the return-to-work process is successful reintegration into the workplace. Insurers help employers assess the injured workers’ needs and capabilities and encourage them to let workers know, in advance of any injury, that they will try to modify work activities to accommodate those who are permanently disabled.
Long absences from work can have a lasting negative impact on workers’ future employment opportunities and thus on their economic well-being. A study of injured workers in Wisconsin by the Workers Compensation Research Institute found that the duration of time off work and periods of subsequent unemployment are lower for injured workers who return to their pre-injury employer than for those who change employers.
Another factor pushing up costs in some states is the amount of attorney involvement. Workers compensation programs were originally intended to be “no-fault” systems and therefore litigation-free. Attorney fees are either set by law or subject to approval of the courts or regulator. Computations may be based on an hourly rate, a percentage of the total award, a specific percentage according to the level of the hearing on the case, or a sliding scale with percentages decreasing with the size of the award. Many states have caps on attorney fees.
Although attorney involvement boosts claim costs by 12 to 15 percent, because claimants must pay attorneys’ fees there is generally no net gain in the actual benefits received. Overall, attorneys are involved in 5 to 10 percent of all workers compensation claims in most states—but in as much as 20 percent in systems where the number of disputes is high and in roughly a third of claims where the worker was injured seriously.
The involvement of an attorney does not necessarily indicate formal litigation proceedings. Sometimes, injured workers turn to attorneys to help them negotiate what they believe is a confusing and complex system. Increasingly, states are trying to make the system easier to understand and to use.
The workers compensation system plays a major role in improving workplace safety. An employer’s workers compensation premium reflects the relative hazards to which workers are exposed and the employer’s claim record. About one-half of states allow what is known as “schedule rating,” a discount or rate credit for superior workplace safety programs.
In addition, a majority of states now provide for optional medical deductibles in workers compensation insurance policies as a cost-saving measure and, in some states, allowable deductible amounts were raised. (Deductibles reduce premiums because they lower an insurer’s administrative expenses, which, for small claims, make up a disproportionately large portion of the cost of settlement.) Deductibles also encourage greater safety-consciousness on the part of the employer who must pay the deductible amount.
In some states, insurers must provide accident prevention services to employers. In others, employers are required by law to set up safety committees and other programs to deal with unsafe conditions in the workplace and assign specific responsibility for creating, monitoring or overseeing workplace safety to a governmental agency.
Some businesses are taking a more radical approach to bringing costs under control through coordination of workers compensation, healthcare and disability benefit plans. The integration of workers compensation and other employee benefit programs is a broad concept that ranges from a simple marketing approach that promises savings from using the same insurer for both coverages to programs that offer a managed care approach to the management of all types of disability, regardless of whether they are work-related.
Besides limiting overlapping programs and streamlining administration, proponents say such a change addresses the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between work- and nonwork-related injuries and illnesses, such as injuries due to repetitive motion and stress claims.
It also improves productivity since nonwork-related disabilities are managed with the same focus of getting the employees back to work as work-related cases, and at the same time addresses the potential for reporting injuries that occur outside the workplace as work-related to reduce the employee’s out-of-pocket costs. Workers compensation pays for all reasonable medical treatment without deductibles and co-payments, as opposed to healthcare, where the policyholder incurs some out-of-pocket costs.
Residual Markets: Residual markets, traditionally the market of last resort, are administered by the NCCI in 29 jurisdictions. In some states, particularly where rates in the voluntary market are inadequate, the residual market provides coverage for a large portion of policyholders. In 1993 they represented about 26.5 percent of the total workers compensation market (excluding employers who are self-insured). Since that time, the NCCI has taken steps to reduce the size of the residual market by creating financial disincentives to obtain coverage from it.
Terrorism Coverage: Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, workers compensation insurers have been taking a closer look at their exposures to catastrophes, both natural and man-made. According to a report by Risk Management Solutions, if the earthquake that shook San Francisco in 1906 were to happen today, it could cause as many as 78,000 injuries, 5,000 deaths and over $7 billion in workers compensation losses.
Workers compensation claims for terrorism could cost an insurer anywhere from $300,000 to $1 million per employee, depending on the state. As a result, firms with a concentration of employees in a single building in major metropolitan areas, such as New York, or near a “trophy building” are now considered high risk, a classification that used to apply only to people in dangerous jobs such as roofing. Faced with the possibility of a huge death toll costing millions of dollars and the threat of insolvency as a result, all but the largest insurers are limiting coverage. This is forcing some employers to raise their deductibles, in effect self-insuring part of the risk, and to deal with several insurers to reduce the potential maximum loss for each.
KEY SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
- Issues Report, a yearly overview of the workers compensation system, National Council on Compensation Insurance.
- “Property/Casualty Insurance Facts,” Insurance Information Institute, annual publication.
- “Analysis of Workers’ Compensation Laws,” U.S. Chamber of Commerce, annual publication.
- Publications from the Workers Compensation Research Institute, Cambridge, MA. http://www.wcrinet.org
- © Insurance Information Institute, Inc. – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED