(Part 1 of the Series "Getting Started with WorkCompEdge") 

Although I originally joined Specific Software as the programmer for ModMaster, nowadays I write words more often than I write code here at work. After I write and edit usage instructions, marketing pieces, educational information, web pages and endless emails - I then do the unthinkable, to some: I go home and write for fun. In all its forms – novel, memoir, poetry, etc. – I’m addicted to the written word.

How does this relate to you and work comp, you might ask? Well, one of my favorite books about writing is Bird by Bird: Some Instructions on Writing and Life by Anne Lamott. Believe it or not, some of the lessons in this book easily transfer to the process of improving your work comp picture.  Bird by Bird got its title from an episode that Lamott relates in the book: when her brother was 10, he had to write a report on birds. He’d put it off and put if off, and now it was due the very next day. Lamott writes,

…he was at the kitchen table close to tears, surrounded by binder paper and pencils and unopened books on birds, immobilized by the hugeness of the task ahead. Then my father sat down beside him, put his arm around my brother's shoulder, and said, "Bird by bird, buddy.  Just take it bird by bird."

Bird by bird. Doesn't any big project - whether it's writing a whole book, building a high-rise condo or planning to host the Olympics - loom large and unwieldly until you start breaking it into pieces? I hope that making changes to improve your work comp picture doesn't feel quite as overwhelming as those tasks, but let's face it: as the sheer number of modules (15) on the WorkCompEdge site attests, there are a lot of places you could start. How do you decide where?

Whether you're an employer or an insurance professional, here’s what you need to do:

Bird 1 - Start by learning what the mod can tell you

You probably already know that the mod is a number somewhere around 1.0, more or less, and that less is better. You hopefully know that the higher your mod is, the more you are going to pay in workers comp premium. If you’re in an industry like construction, you know that you may not be eligible to win contracts unless your mod is at least 1.0. But an analysis of your mod, which your insurance agent can do in our ModMaster software, will show you information such as:

• Your controllable mod – the amount of mod points you could save if you had no losses – and the corresponding money you could be saving on premium
• How much money you could be saving in premium for every point you trim from the mod
• How the number and severity of your losses compare to standards for your industry
• How your losses are trending, and therefore what you may anticipate for your future mod(s)

The WorkCompEdge Proposal report from ModMaster will show you or your client the top 5 or 6 areas of concern to prioritize when evaluating work comp improvement opportunities.

These factors and more are presented in the new, handy-dandy WorkCompEdge Proposal report in ModMaster, which then goes on to do some analytical behind-the-scenes crunching of that data to present the top 5 or 6 areas of concern that you should consider first. For example, if your analysis shows that loss severity is an issue, then this report is going to recommend you look at the Clock Is Ticking, Expedite Return-to-Work and Before and After an Injury modules first. If you have a frequency issue, it’s going to steer you towards the safety modules. If your mod is already great – either at or very near the minimum possible mod – then it’s going to steer you toward optimizing your costs through modules like Avoid Low Bid Mentality, Wellness, and others.

Here’s a sample of the WorkCompEdge proposal report in ModMaster. If you’re an agent, be sure to run it for your clients. If you’re an employer, be sure to ask for it from your agent. It’s a great way to decide – based on analytical data - which “bird” deserves your attention first. 

Will paying small medical-only bills rather than reporting them to the carrier save you money - or cost you? The answer's not simple!

1. Whether or not the state has approved the Experience Rating Adjustment (ERA) in their experience modification formula.

2. Whether or not the employer has expertise in paying according to the state fee or reasonable and customary schedule and/or has access to discounted medical networks as insurance carriers do.

3. Whether or not a small deductible to handle small medical claims might be more appropriate and assist in complying with state rules.

4. Understanding the state rules and penalties where the employer is located.

5. Whether or not the state of operation has a favorable alternative option for handling small medical claims.

6. How organized and detailed the employer is.

For this blog, we're going to focus on one concern related to the ERA, but a full article addressing more about ERA as well as these other factors is available to WorkCompEdge members here on our wiki in pdf format. 

An Analysis of Reporting vs. Not Reporting in ERA States

Many of you do business in states which have approved the Experience Rating Adjustment (ERA) to the experience mod formula. Medical-only claims, also known as injury code 6 claims, are reduced by 70% in states where ERA is approved before they are utilized in the experience rating process. Also, the expected loss rate and discount ratio, used to compute expected losses and expected primary losses, have been changed to reflect that medical-only claims will be reduced by 70%.

Many feel the incentive to not report medical-only claims has been eliminated in states where ERA is approved. In the interest of showing that, I performed several “what if” scenarios on employers either reporting to the carrier or paying medical-only claims on their own in ERA states and its impact on the Experience Modification and the employer’s overall costs.  The studies are conclusive that the employer did not save money by paying medical-only claims itself in an ERA state, particularly if the employer does not know how to apply the state fee schedule and/or has no access to discounted networks like those developed by insurance carriers.  Here is an example.

The variances among states dictate that there is no one, simple answer to the employer’s quandary of whether to pay small medical-only claims or turn them in to the insurance carriers for payment.  An employer must weigh the advantages and disadvantages of paying small medical claims after obtaining a complete understanding of their state’s rules and laws, evaluating their staff’s ability to effectively manage their own medical bills and reviewing the insurance alternatives available that take paying small medical claims into consideration.

Barack Obama was yesterday’s winner by notable margins in both the electoral and popular votes, but those two sets of numbers (currently 349 to 163 in electoral votes and 52% to 46% in the popular vote, with a couple of states still not reported) still tell different stories. Every presidential election we are reminded that it’s the electoral vote that really counts. It is, as history and pundits remind us, possible to win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote. Now, hold on to your comments, as I'm not trying to make any political statement here, and I know we've all had our fill of polls and graphs lately. I mention these numbers as an example of the cliché: it’s all in how you slice and dice the data.

I recently met with top level claims representatives from a major insurance company to discuss some issues related to their management of several injured employee cases.  These are good people striving to do a good job. They do difficult work in a challenging system. 

When it comes to claims management, insurance companies and employers are looking at the data in different ways.

Insurance companies’ key measurement for workers’ compensation injuries is something called the pure loss ratio. This is the percentage of the premium dollar that goes to pay for injury costs. For example, their goal might be to spend no more than 60% of premium dollars on injury costs.  Add expenses to that percentage and what remains is their profit, not counting investment income.

From the insurance company’s perspective, if they meet their goal, then their processes are working. They see the work comp world from an aggregate view, while we’re looking at specific injured employees.

Some might suggest that if insurance companies are not effectively dealing with the specific, they will not meet their overall objectives. However, there are times, as is now the case, when they are saved by legislative reforms which drive down injury costs regardless of their processes.  When doctors and lawyers get reigned in by the legislature, everybody looks smart.  But as the saying goes, just because you are standing on third base, that does not mean you hit a triple.

The employer’s primary objective is for the injured employee to get the best medical treatment and to get back to health and productivity as soon as possible.  The insurance company’s primary objective is to meet a number. If they attain their aggregate goal, then they are not as open to improving their processes.

Thus, it is up to the employer to make sure the employee gets what is needed and is not just a set of dates and numbers “sliced and diced” in the insurance company’s claims system. The incentives are not aligned such that the employer can abdicate this critical responsibility to insurance companies.  

In addition, Mr. Kryzwicki said a safety leadership culture can be measured and improved.

He outlined three components of safety culture used at DuPont: leadership, structure, and processes and actions. 

Each component includes four elements which he calls the “12 Gifts.” 

Leadership elements include:

• Management Commitment
• Policies & Principles
• Goals, Objectives, & Plans
• Procedures & Performance Standards

Structure elements include:

• Line Management Accountability& Responsibility
• Safety Personnel
• Integrated Organization
• Structure Motivation & Awareness

Process and Actions elements include:

• Effective Communication
• Training & Development
• Incident Investigation
• Audits & Observations

Kryzwicki asked the audience to take a leap of faith and measure their safety culture and leadership performance with perception surveys of managers, supervisors, professionals, and hourly workers.  DuPont studies show the better the safety culture score, the lower the number and severity of injuries. 

Those of you who are familiar with the content of WorkCompEdge will know that I delighted to hear of DuPont’s experience and certainly think it’s worth emulating. Although WorkCompEdge doesn’t express safety culture in quite the same components and elements structure that DuPont uses, we definitely subscribe to the same message: safety is about more than programs, and measuring your safety culture is the first step in improving it. WorkCompEdge members can start that process today using the survey included in the module Build True Safety Culture - It's More Than the Incentive of the Month.

I am confident in DuPont’s findings and encourage employers to perform similar assessments of their own safety culture and performance now, before you attempt to polish any rough edges in the culture you may suspect exists. Although it may take some intestinal fortitude to digest the perceptions you uncover, particularly among certain segments of your employees, you need to establish a baseline of your current safety culture at all levels of your organization. Benchmarking is a critical first step to determining where you are so you can decide where you need to go.