Search      Advanced Search | Browse By Topic
Magazine Content
Home
Features
Columnists
Industry Risk Reports
In-Depth Series
Special Reports
Point/Counterpoint
R&I One® Content
News & Analysis
Editor's Choice Stories
Resources and Tools
Power Broker® Directory
Risk InnovatorTM
Emerging Risks
Top Employee Benefits Consultant
Executives To Watch
Insights
Industry Events
WorkersComp Forum
Award Nominations
Webinars
RSS
R&I Information
Subscription Center
Advertiser Information
About Us
Contact Us
 

Newsletter Sign-up

Click on the name of the free newsletter below to preview:

R&I One®
WORKERSCOMP Forum TM Update
HTML Text
E-Mail Address:


Click here to unsubscribe
Privacy Policy
Preferences

 

Counterpoint: Comp's Enduring Value

The state-run system has proved itself over the past 100 years and deserves to be strengthened.

So you want to privatize workers' comp insurance? You've heard that opening up the system to the private sector is the way to provide efficient services, lower employer premiums and injured workers headed back to work sooner? Back off!

If we've learned anything about privatization over the past decade, it's that we ought to be very careful what we wish for.

Remember that it's because of these workers' comp funds, part of a no-fault system and under state control, that employers have an incentive to improve jobsite safety and provide better working conditions for workers.

In workers' comp, we're dealing with lives, injured lives. As a line, workers' comp is closer to life and health than it is to property/casualty. As we know, though, private health insurers have already taught us a painful lesson: They prefer covering pristine lives.

But for those with lives already injured and broken -- lives with "pre-existing conditions," I believe the term would be, premiums are through the roof.

Is that what we want? Do we want employers paying exorbitant rates of the handful of workers with a higher injury risk profile? In Texas, where employers have the choice to opt out, some small employers aren't even bothering to provide workers' comp coverage. Is that what we really want? I don't think so.

Remember that the state-based workers' comp system is a no-fault safety net designed to prevent plaintiffs from suing employers. So far, it has done a good job of slamming the door on plaintiff's attorneys trolling for new business.

Look at what happened in the professional liability/medical malpractice markets 20 years ago. That's when prices shot so high in the wake of legal disputes that no carrier was willing to underwrite the malpractice exposure at prices anyone could afford.

The system's "exclusive remedy" protections prohibit injured workers from suing their employer for work-related injuries, precisely to avoid astronomical price hikes for employers. That would all disappear under a privatized workers' comp system.

Yes, some state funds have been poster children for mismanagement and fraud, and billions of dollars were wasted by state-run workers' comp funds. West Virginia, whose fund went bankrupt several years ago, comes to mind.

Yet, many other funds are solvent and, indeed, serve as incubators for new, progressive ideas: Just look at Maine, Oregon and Wisconsin.

The issue isn't whether funds are state-run or privatized. It is whether the funds are well managed, of which there are plenty to show us the way.

CYRIL TUOHY is managing editor of Risk & Insurance®. He can be reached at ctuohy@lrp.com.


Print Email Add to Facebook Add to Twitter Add to LinkedIn Write to the Editor Reprints
-- --

November 1, 2012

Copyright 2012© LRP Publications

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
RISK logo
 

Back to top

Entire contents copyright © 2013 Risk and Insurance® All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without written permission.