Tag Archives: employer costs

DLI News: COVID-19 FAQs from Employers

The Department of Labor & Industries (DLI) has responded to COVID-19 FAQs from employers. In a news statement, below, DLI outlines policy decisions made to provide direction and relief for state fund employers under the workers’ compensation system.

The referenced COVID-19 FAQs are, primarily, related to employers who participate in the Retrospective Rating, or RETRO, program. This is a complex system based on a simple premise. Retro employers pay premiums into the workers’ compensation fund each year, but are then audited to determine actual claim costs. If their costs are higher than premiums paid, then an additional payment for the difference must be made. Or, if the claim costs are lower than the premiums paid, they receive a refund of a portion of their premium payments.

This program is intended to incentivize safer workplaces. The claim costs from allowed Coronavirus cases could prove quite harmful to many employers. The policy updates from DLI address this concern.

DLI Notice of COVID-19 Policy Decisions

In response to questions from employers and their representatives, the Department of Labor & Industries has made certain policy decisions to provide some financial relief to state fund employers from the impact of allowed COVID-19 claims. These decisions are outlined in the “Frequently Asked Questions” (FAQ) below. We also want you to be aware of premium reporting requirements under certain circumstances such as when a business has been closed as a result of the pandemic, yet the employer is continuing to pay their workers. And we’ve clarified that injured workers whose temporary light duty ends are entitled to time-loss compensation. If you have any questions please contact your account manager or retrospective rating representative.

Common COVID-19 FAQs from Employers

Will coronavirus (COVID-19) claims impact an employer’s experience modification factor and claim-free discount (if applicable)?

No. All losses for allowed coronavirus claims, regardless of whether the virus is contracted, will not be included in the determination of an employer’s experience modification factor. An employer will not lose their claim free discount as a result of an allowed coronavirus claim.

What will the impact to retrospective rating calculations be for losses from coronavirus claims?

It’s important that the claims included in experience factor calculation, retrospective rating adjustments, and for rating purposes align. Therefore, the losses for allowed coronavirus claims will not be included in the retro adjustment calculations.

If an employer has a worker on temporary light duty and their business is closed due to the pandemic, is the worker eligible for time-loss benefits? Will these losses be included in the employer’s experience factor?

The worker is eligible for time-loss benefits unless the employer chooses to keep them on salary. The law is clear in situations where temporary or transitional light-duty work comes to an end, regardless of the reason it’s ending. The law recognizes that these workers are restricted from being able to perform their regular employment or jobs, other than the light-duty one.

Only losses for allowed coronavirus claims are being removed from the experience factor calculations.

Does an employer need to report hours when their business is closed during the pandemic, or when a worker is continuing to be paid or kept on salary but notactually working?

If an employer continues to pay a worker while their business is closed during a coronavirus quarantine, or to maintain the worker’s salary on an open claim, if the worker is not actually working the hours don’t need to be reported.

  • If you have hourly workers who are continuing to be paid and not working as a result of the pandemic, you are not required to report hours and premium for the time they are not working.
  • If you have salaried workers reporting actual hours worked (hourly method), continue to do so.
  • If you have salaried workers and report 480 hours per quarter (salary method), you may report the actual hours they worked.

Note: regardless of how you report, you are required to keep a record of these non-work hours in your payroll system. Please refer to WAC 296-17-35201 for recordkeeping and retention.

Contact Information for RETRO Employers

If you have further questions regarding reporting, contact your account manager at 360-902-4817.

Retrospective Rating Program 
WA State Department of Labor & Industries 
PO Box 44180 
Olympia, Washington US  98504-4180 
Retro@Lni.wa.gov  
360-902-4851  voice 
360-902-4258  fax 

Prior Posts on Related Topics

Examining Workers’ Compensation Costs to Employers

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics National Compensation Survey 1991 – 2014 (Credit: Sisi Wei/ProPublica)

Today’s post comes from guest author Rod Rehm, from Rehm, Bennett & Moore.

Business and insurance interests are bombarding state legislatures every day of the week to take workers’ rights away by complaining how most states’ workers’ compensation systems are too expensive.

Recently, ProPublica and NPR produced a very detailed explanation of the state of workers’ compensation, focusing, rightly so, on injured workers. This article, which was the first in the series, included an interactive graphic that showed that even though business are complaining about rising premius, workers’ compensation insurance coverage is generally at its lowest rate in 25 years, “even as the costs of health care have increased dramatically,” according to the article.

As examples, using the average premium cost to the employer per $100 of workers’ wages, Nebraska employers paid $1.93 in 1988, while they actually paid $.15 less for the premium in 2014, for a total of $1.78 per $100 of workers’ wages, according to the chart. Iowa was more dramatic, with the price of workers’ compensation insurance $2.79 per $100 of workers’ wages in 1988. It went down $.91 to $1.88 per $100 of workers’ wages in 2014.

By scrolling down in the article, a person finds another graphic that shows how employer costs have risen for other categories, but have fallen for workers’ compensation. Most notably, the cost of workers’ compensation insurance coverage (per $100 of workers’ wages) went from $2.71 in 1991 to $2.00 in 2014. During the same timeframe, the cost of health insurance went from $8.55 to $12.52 and the cost of retirement benefits went from $5.50 to $7.29, all per $100 of workers’ wages, according to the chart in the article.

The offices of Rehm, Bennett & Moore and Trucker Lawyers are located in Lincoln and Omaha, Nebraska. Six attorneys represent plaintiffs in workers’ compensation, personal injury, employment and Social Security disability claims. The firm’s lawyers have combined experience of more than 90 years of practice representing injured workers and truck drivers in Nebraska and Iowa in state-specific workers’ compensation systems. The lawyers regularly represent hurt truck drivers and often sue Crete Carrier Corporation, K&B Trucking, Werner Enterprises, UPS, and FedEx. Lawyers in the firm hold licenses in Nebraska and Iowa and are active in groups such as the College of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Workers’ Injury Law & Advocacy Group (WILG), American Association for Justice (AAJ), and the Nebraska Association of Trial Attorneys (NATA).  We have the knowledge, experience and toughness to win rightful compensation for people who have been injured or mistreated.

Slow Recovery Affects Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Costs

A Press Release by the National Academy of Social Insurance

 

WASHINGTON, DC – Workers’ compensation benefits declined to $57.5 billion in 2010 according to a report released today by the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI). The drop in workers’ compensation benefits was largely due to a 2.1 percent drop in medical benefits for injured workers. Employers’ costs for workers’ compensation also fell by 2.7 percent in 2010. As a share of covered wages, employers’ costs in 2010 were the lowest in the last three decades.

 

“As a share of covered wages, employers’ costs in 2010 were the lowest in the last three decades.”

 

“Employers’ costs as a percent of payroll declined in 43 jurisdictions,” said John F. Burton, Jr., chair of the study panel that oversees the report. “This decline is probably due to the slow pace of the recovery, with many jurisdictions still experiencing relatively high unemployment rates.”

 

Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2010
Total

2010

Change   Since 2009 (%)

Covered workers (in thousands)

124,454

-0.3%

Covered wages (in billions)

$5,820

2.6%

Benefits paid (in billions)

$57.5

-0.7%

Medical benefits

$28.1

-2.1%

Cash benefits

$29.5

0.7%

Employer costs (in billions)

$71.3

-2.7%

Per $100 of Covered Wages

2010

Change   Since 2009 ($)

Benefits paid

$0.99

-$0.03

Medical benefits

$0.48

-$0.03

Cash benefits

$0.51

-$0.01

Employers’ costs

$1.23

-$0.06

Source: National Academy of Social Insurance, 2012.

 

The new report, Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage and Costs, 2010, is the fifteenth in the series that provides the only comprehensive data on workers’ compensation benefits for the nation, the states, the District of Columbia, and federal programs. 

 

“This report represents the first time the Academy has released employers’ costs by state.”

This report represents the first time the Academy has released employers’ costs by state. For a table showing employers’ costs for all fifty states and the District of Columbia, refer to Table 12 (page 34).

Most states reported a decrease in the number of workers covered but an increase in covered wages between 2009 and 2010. During the same period, the total amount of benefits paid to injured workers declined in 26 jurisdictions and increased in 25. As a share of payroll, benefits paid to injured workers fell by three cents to $0.99 per $100 of payroll in the nation.

The share of medical benefits for workers’ compensation has increased substantially over the last 40 years. During the 1970s medical benefits nationally accounted for 30 percent of total benefits, whereas in 2010 the share of benefits paid for medical care was almost 50 percent. Experts attribute this trend to the rising cost of health care.