‘Report cards’ show individual states’ success varies widely; NY officials remind 9/11 workers to file before 2010 deadline

A month after a private company’s issuance of “report cards” on individual states’ performance regarding working workers compensation, some states are reporting rate decreases, some are reporting increases, and others seem to be, well, in a mess. Officials in New York, according to “EHS Today,” are reminding 9/11 workers from around the country that only “12 months remain until the final registration deadline of Sept. 11, 2010″ for  “workers and volunteers who participated in rescue, cleanup or recovery operations following the attack on the World Trade Center to register with New York State’s Workers’ Compensation Board to preserve the right to file for 9/11-related workers’ compensation.”

Says EHS Today in a Sept. 16 post, “Those who have yet not registered must do so in order to file for medical and wage replacement benefits if they are currently sick or if they are concerned they might get sick in the future.”

On July 22, the Work Loss Data Institute (despite the name, a private company that says it has offices in Texas and California) announced its self-proclaimed “much-anticipated” 2009 edition of its “State Report Cards for Workers’ Comp,” which it says uses “the most current data available” in order to “help employers, insurers, TPA’s, state governments and consultants answer the questions, ‘Who is doing well and why?’ “

According to the company, which also sells a trademarked line of products under the “Official Disability Guidelines” umbrella, the 2009 report cards show that “Iowa performed the best of all the states for 2006 and Minnesota came in a close second. Both states received a grade of ‘A+’ based on an average of their 2006 scores in the five categories above. Illinois came in last, with Wyoming, Rhode Island and New York very close to the bottom. In total, nine of the 43 states received a grade of ‘F’ in 2006. A summary of each grade for all states is shown on a  U.S. Map Showing Grades by State.

According to that graphic, six states are in the best, top tier, (“Tier I,” from, roughly west to east): Utah, Kansas, Minnesotta, Iowa, Alabama and Virgina. Again roughly west to Eest, the “Tier II” states are Nevada, Arizona, Indiana and Georgia.

In the mid-ranks, “Tier III” states include Montanna, New Mexico, Missouri, Arkansas, Michigan, Delaware, Vermont and Maine; the “Tier IV” states are Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Nebraska, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware and Connecticut.

In the lower two brackets, the “Tier V” states are Hawaii, California, West Virgina and Maine; apparently the Hall of Shame states, comprising Tier VI, are Wyoming, Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois, New York, New Jersey and Rhode Island.

Oddly enough, two neighboring “Tier IV” states, Oregon and Washington, are on divergent paths as far as workers comp rates are concerned.

From the Portland Business Journal, this Sept. 11 post says “Workers’ comp rates drop for fourth straight year.” But next door in Washington, also according to PBJ, “premiums will increase by an average of 7.6 percent, or about 4 cents per hour worked, the state Department of Labor and Industries announced” Sept. 21.

In Oregon, the “Department of Consumer and Business Services announced that the workers’ compensation ‘pure’ premium rate will decrease by a 1.3 percent average in 2010, saving employers $18.1 million. Workers’ compensation rates have decreased each year since 2006 and have not increased since 1990, according to department officials.

“Oregon’s costs remain low because the state continues to experience fewer workplace injuries and illnesses, said Cory Streisinger, director of the Department of Consumer and Business Services. The state’s workplace injury and illness rates in Oregon have declined nearly 19 percent since 2004.”

The rate story in Washington is a bad news/good news scenario. Yes, rates are expected to climb  nearly 8 per cent, but earlier projections had forecast a rise of 15 to 20 per cent. Several business groups decried the premiums hike, but the state’s director of the Department of Labor and Industries Judy Schurke explained that the “increase is needed for several reasons: Workers’ comp funds now have weaker investment returns, there are fewer premiums because people aren’t working as many hours, and there are fewer jobs for injured workers to return to. In addition, health-care costs have increased by 8.5 percent and wages increased by 3.4 percent.”

Another state with good news is Kentucky, as reported Sept. 21 in Business First–savings there will begin before 2010: “Kentucky’s largest workers’ compensation insurance provider is lowering its rates for businesses across the state.

“The reduction by Kentucky Employers’ Mutual Insurance amounts to an overall average of 6 percent, it said Monday in a news release.

Businesses eligible for preferred rates might see decreases of as much as 30 percent.

The new rates go into effect Oct. 1 and apply to both new and renewal policies.”

Apparently officials in Wisconsin and Colorado might be happy if all they had to deal with were rate hikes. According to a Sept. 21 account in the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a conference on workers compensation scheduled for today was quite apprpopriately organized around a railroad theme: ” ‘In Wisconsin, the workers compensation process is a bit of a train wreck,’ said Sandy Wight, marketing executive with the Orthopedic & Sports Institute of the Fox Valley in Appleton.”

According to a Sept 18 cbs4denver.com post, the recent Pinnacol hearings have left legislators in Colorado with little choice to revamp the current system. “Colorado lawmakers say they can’t ignore problems that came up during hearings on the state’s biggest workers compensation insurer, Pinnacol Assurance.”

One item in particular is a sore spot: seems Pinnacol employees have in the past earned bonuses for denying claims. Here’s a highlight of reform proposals, from a Sept. 18 piece on denverpost.com:

• “Bar financial incentives for denying or delaying claims or medical treatment and require that conflicts of interest be disclosed.
• “Require greater oversight by Pinnacol’s board, including “improved complaint provisions . . . and annual reporting.”
• “Institute a mechanism for lowering policyholders’ rates.
• “Create a “Worker’s Bill of Rights” to better inform injured employees of their rights.
• “Require a “probable reason” to suspect fraud before conducting surveillance on injured workers.

A detailed account of the Colorado situation is here.