In June, the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) published a report titled “Cost Shifting from Workers' Comp Opt-Out Systems: Lessons from Texas and Oklahoma.” It claims to show how employers in those states are avoiding costs that should be covered by workers' comp and that are instead paid by workers, their families, private payers and taxpayers. The report is part of a year-long, anti-competitive campaign that has been orchestrated with claimant attorneys who profit under workers' comp and resist any move away from the traditional approach. The report shows little regard for the facts, applicable law or actual data on performance of alternatives to traditional workers' compensation.
Here are five of the most significant bits
of misinformation and misrepresentation:
1. No relevant data.
The PCI cost shifting report boasts of using “verifiable and relevant data” and speaks to “the behavior of opt-out employers.” But the report fails to actually include any Texas or Oklahoma Option claims data, and the truth is that there is no evidence that PCI has even attempted to obtain such claims data.
2. No apples-to-apples comparison.
PCI fails to consider the benefit plan payments, supplemental plan payments and negligence liability settlements and awards under Texas Option programs that are not available under workers' compensation.
See also: 2016 Outlook for Property-Casualty
3. No mention that the majority of Texas workers are covered
. PCI fails to acknowledge that the Texas Department of Insurance has determined
that more than 95% of Texas’ workers are covered by either workers' compensation or an injury benefit plan.
Instead of criticizing responsible Texas and Oklahoma employers who provide injury benefit coverage for their workers, PCI should instead focus on the approximately 14 million — and growing — American workers across all states who have no work injury protection whatsoever.
4. No mention that proposed programs in other states have mandated benefits.
PCI extrapolates from Texas to posit a false model for Tennessee and South Carolina. Option programs proposed in those states — unlike Texas — have mandated benefits. No bill has been introduced in either of those states to allow employers to “go bare.”
5. No acknowledgement of option program compliance with Medicare reporting and MSA requirements.
Option programs normally pay full benefits before Medicare pays anything. The programs comply with Medicare quarterly, electronic reporting rules on open medical claims and liability settlements. The programs protect Medicare's primary interest before settling claims with Medicare beneficiaries by setting aside a portion of the settlement funds to pay for future treatment.
Instead of using option programs as a scapegoat and pursuing the fatalistic view that savings by employers equate to cost shifting, perhaps the PCI should expend more energy on how to achieve better medical outcomes for injured workers through communication, employee advocacy, accountability and competition.
Option Program Success in Delivering Better Outcomes Is the Real Story
We will continue to advocate for a more positive discussion on how to achieve better medical outcomes. That should include a sincere discussion of the PCI board's criteria for an acceptable alternative to workers’ compensation
, which was approved in July 2015 and publicly introduced eight months later at the 2016 annual conference of the Workers’ Compensation Research Institute.
See also: Healthcare Reform’s Effects on Workers’ Compensation
Workers’ comp options in Texas and Oklahoma have disrupted the industry with much-needed innovation and positive change. This has understandably created some dissonance and has rightly generated calls for proof. We welcome a review of real option program data, which amply demonstrates how highly respected industry players and employers are improving the lives of injured workers and reducing costs.
Who could be against that?