Tag Archives: sb 1062

More States to Offer Work Comp ‘Opt-Out’?

As we are all too familiar, the handling of workers’ compensation is dictated by statutes in all states. Only Texas and Oklahoma offer the freedom to “opt out” of the statute, and their approaches are quite different.

In Texas, “non-subscription” has been around for more than 100 years. Practitioners have achieved dramatic costs savings and better outcomes for many claims. Over time, non-subscribers also often experience significant reductions in frequency and length of disability. All of these outcomes are what we work hard to help our clients achieve, but we are often frustrated by the statutory requirements of many states that bring bureaucracy and controversy to many claims.

In February 2013, the state of Oklahoma enacted workers’ compensation legislation, SB 1062, which allows any employer to exit, or opt-out of, the state’s statutory workers’ compensation system. While not exactly like  “non-subscription” in Texas, this new statute is a significant move forward in giving employers more options in how they respond to and finance employee injuries and related benefits. A key focus is on ensuring injured employees are treated respectfully and compensated fairly.

Just as there are significant differences between what Oklahoma has done and what has been in place in Texas for more than 100 years, there are state-specific opportunities to improve in many other states.

Enter the Association for Responsible Alternatives to Workers’ Compensation, or ARAWC (pronounced “A-Rock”). This national coalition of employers and workers’ compensation system providers has formed after many realized the benefits achieved in Texas and those anticipated in Oklahoma.

Where SB 1062 offers Oklahoma employers that choose to opt-out of the state system the opportunity to substantially reduce work-injury costs and avoid both the statutory system’s extensive regulation and litigation risk, similar goals for other states are being established by the leaders of ARAWC for the benefit of both employers and employees. Two key statistics show why Oklahoma changed:

  • Oklahoma employers said that workers’ compensation costs were the #1 reason they were either leaving the state or adding jobs at facilities located in other states, such as Texas.
  • National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) statistics for 2012 showed Oklahoma loss costs to be 225% higher than those in neighboring states.

ARAWC is now developing strategies and plans that will identify the states where statutory change can bring the most benefit to both employers and employees through a more effective, efficient mechanism. The founders expect that their efforts will enable the delivery of better medical outcomes to injured workers and give employers more choice on how employee injuries will be managed. The organization will be announcing its first target state at the first of the year.

Currently, all but Oklahoma and Texas effectively mandate workers’ compensation insurance as the sole option for employers to cover employee injuries. The Texas and Oklahoma options are not currently available elsewhere. ARAWC’s mission is to expand the delivery of better medical outcomes to injured workers by expanding employer choice in other states. Experience under these alternative employee injury benefit platforms has proven to dramatically reduce employee injury costs, while achieving higher employee satisfaction and substantial economic development.

Over the past two decades, Texas non-subscribers have achieved better medical outcomes for hundreds of thousands of injured workers and saved billions of dollars on occupational injury costs. While ARAWC is not necessarily taking the Texas model forward into other states, it will leverage the learnings from more than 100 years of having options in Texas and from what emerges from the changes from Oklahoma’s new statute, to drive a strategy for process improvements and lower costs in selected states where change is overdue. It is important to remember that ARAWC views an option as a positive, competitive complement to workers’ comp, not necessarily a replacement to the current system.

Some of the core benefits that ARAWC will be seeking include:

  • Delivering better medical outcomes and higher process satisfaction for injured workers without the cost and burden of traditional workers’ compensation.
  • Driving state economic development through the attraction of employer savings.

This newly minted organization was established and is governed by a founding board that includes many Sedgwick clients that, in some cases, have tens of thousands of employees throughout the U.S. and have an intense interest in seeing those employees helped by a better-designed and -managed system.

The member companies of ARAWC aspire to refocus state-based mandates in response to growing gaps in quality medical care, efficient risk financing, effective return to work and other gaps in many current systems. Some of the other expected benefits of ARAWC’s strategy for employees are expected to be:

  • Improved workplace safety and training supporting injury prevention.
  • Expanded access to quality medical providers providing exceptional care.
  • Opportunity for expanded benefits through custom-designed plans.
  • Opportunity for reduced waiting periods for wage replacement, with greater benefits.
  • More expedient medical treatment and more immediate referral to specialized medical treatment to enhance recovery.
  • Early identification of potentially complicating medical conditions and securing appropriate medical treatment to aid recovery.
  • Improved communications with injured workers to address benefit questions and assist early return to work.

Nationwide, the experience under alternative employee injury platforms will provide employers the option of alternative mechanisms, which can result in:

  • A more competitive insurance marketplace — experience shows significant rate reductions when choice is introduced.
  • Improved incentive for existing workers’ compensation providers to improve services and pricing, knowing the employer has an option to be more engaged in helping injured workers recover and return to work more quickly and efficiently.
  • Incentives for medical providers to act in the best interests of the employee and improve levels of service
  • Expanding employee access to medical providers who do not accept workers’ compensation patients because of low fee schedules and paperwork.
  • An injury benefit plan that can more efficiently deliver care to and achieve better medical outcomes for injured workers.

ARAWC shows what an often inefficient system can motivate: change that can benefit all participants while reducing bureaucracy and many other negative elements.

As the conversations that ITL is driving are focused on disrupting the status quo, what better place to start than with choice in workers’ compensation?

What Do New Workers' Compensation Reforms Sweeping the Country Have in Common?

AOECOE – Not Just Another Acronym

California Senate Bill 863 was passed in the fall of 2012 and went into effect on January 1, 2013. Senate Bill 1062 was just signed into law by Governor Mary Fallin of Oklahoma and will take effect January 1, 2014. On April 30, 2013, Tennessee Governor, Bill Haslam, signed into effect Senate Bill 200. House Bill 154 is expected to go into effect in Georgia in July, 2013. What are these bills? The first of many sweeping Workers' Compensation reforms. A common theme in these bills and other pending reforms is to level the playing field for employers and accept only those claims that arise out of the course and scope of employment, AOECOE.

A well-known term of art in the Workers' Compensation arena, AOECOE is not just an acronym. It is transitioning from a term of art to a statement with teeth, as reforms are actually including such wording into bills. The purpose of doing this is to establish whether an employee's alleged injury is work-related and happened in the course and scope of employment, or whether the injury is non-industrial or affected by third parties.

Workers' Compensation is a no fault system and thus benefits the injured worker, as, in order to receive benefits, he or she does not need to prove that the employer was negligent. However, it is the injured party's burden to show that the injury did, in fact, occur while at work, while employed as an employee and while undertaking some activity for the benefit of the employer. The injury itself must have been caused by the accident or employment conditions, and not from some other non-industrial related factors or degenerative factors.

The determination of AOECOE has long been an OSHA policy. OSHA's Injury and Illness Recordkeeping Regulation Section 1904.5: Determination of work-relatedness contained under section (a) basic requirement states in order for an injury or illness to be work-related an event or exposure in the work environment is either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness. Work-relatedness is presumed for injuries and illnesses resulting from events or exposures occurring in the work environment.

California's SB 863 was signed into law by Governor Brown on September 18, 2012, for a January 1, 2013, effective date. While certainly not the first bill to consider AOECOE issues, it is one of the most significant Workers' Compensation reform bills to specify AOECOE language. SB 863 calls for an Independent Medical Review (IMR). While this process may be problematic for an employer, since an IMR can be requested only by an injured worker following a denial, modification, or delay of a treatment request through the utilization review (UR) process, the bill specifically states that this does not apply if the injury is in question for AOECOE reasons.

On May 8, 2013, Oklahoma Governor Fallin signed into law historic Workers' Compensation reform, Senate Bill 1062. The bill defines compensable injury as arising out of the course and scope of employment and does not include: any strain, degeneration damage or harm to disease or condition of the eye or musculoskeletal structure or other body part resulting from the natural result of aging, osteoarthritis, degenerative process or pre-existing, except if a treating physician clearly confirms an identifiable and significant aggravation arising out of AOECOE.

On April 29, 2013, Tennessee Governor Haslam signed a Workers' Compensation reform bill into law, SB 200. It specifies that injuries arise out of and in the course and scope of employment only if proven by a preponderance of evidence that employment contributed more than 50% to causing the injury, AOECOE.

In my experience, the majority of injuries are real, but they are not AOECOE. Injured parties may exaggerate the severity and extent of their injuries or may attempt to hide pre-existing conditions. So how do any employers determine if injuries are AOECOE? The answer is simple. They need to ascertain what the employees' statuses are pre-injury. This is effectively done with baseline testing.

Baseline testing is a bookend solution. To be effective, it should be objective, meet the criteria for evidenced-based medicine, be job related and consistent with medical necessity. It needs to be specific to the metrics being evaluated. A good example of a specific baseline test that is recognized in some jurisdictions by statute is audiometric testing. Hearing tests are routinely done in environments with high noise exposure to determine a baseline that is referenced once a claim is filed. This is commonly referred to as the lock box defense.

Audiometric testing is beneficial for documenting hearing loss but is not designed to address other conditions such as musculoskeletal disorders (MSD). MSDs are the most frequent and costly claims for an employer. In order for a baseline test to be utilized for MSD, it must not only be objective and reproducible, it must contain measurements to ascertain electromyography (EMG), range of motion (ROM) and function.

In addition, baseline testing must be legally defensible. In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act that outlines what makes a legally defensible test. To be legally defensible, the testing needs to be job-related and consistent with business necessity i.e. the employer must show that it “substantially promote[s]” the business' needs. It must be repeatable, objective and address functionality. Also, since baseline testing is considered to be a medical exam, it needs to evaluate some functions of the job.

Baseline testing is not a post-offer, pre-placement test, as it can not identify disability because the data is not read and no hiring decisions are made with baseline evaluations. When a work-related injury occurs, a post loss test is conducted, at which time the baseline test is read and compared to the post loss results, hence the bookends.

When compared, the results can determine if an injury exists and if it has arisen out of the course and scope of employment, thus determining an employer's true responsibility. Good baseline testing is non-discriminatory and prevents “false” claims. The sweeping Workers' Compensation reforms allow for a new definition of “false” claim: one that is not AOECOE. A false claim no longer means fraud! A proven example of an effective baseline test is the EFA-STM.

Workers' Compensation statutes are helping employers by allowing them to accept the claims that are only AOECOE. Employers need to see that they comply with legislation, and baseline testing now gives them an objective assessment to do just that.