| |
Home
The
Industry
Industry
Players
-Insurers
-Healthcare
Providers
-Attorneys
-State
Workers'
Compensation
Commissions
-Professional
Associations
&
Others
Existing
Intermediaries
Market
Opportunity
Resources
About
the
Authors
|
 |
Players
Insurance
Carriers and State Workers Compensation Funds
-
The payors of workers’ compensation
claims are the insurance carriers, the self-insured businesses (if allowed
by law) and municipalities, and the state workers’ compensation funds.
-
The structure of insurance carriers
is comparable to those for health, auto, life, etc. insurance, except that
they insure specifically for job-related injuries. In fact, most insurance
carriers are involved in several vertical markets, including those mentioned
above.
-
Most states do not allow self-insured
coverage for businesses, although it is a fairly common practice for municipalities.
Self-insured businesses are not always required to follow the same guidelines
as businesses insured by an external carrier, although there is state legislation
pending to remedy this, thus making self-insured status quite attractive
to larger businesses.
-
During the 1980’s, the cost of providing
workers’ compensation coverage was so exorbitant in some states, specifically
due to the structure of (or lack thereof) workers’ compensation systems,
that many insurance carriers refused to provide coverage to businesses
in those states. As such, states were forced to set up their own "insurance"
systems, which became known as state workers’ compensation funds, run independently
from the state government, and often with a temporary mandate (which eventually
becomes permanent, even with reform measures in place). This has happened
in both Texas and California, although there are others.
-
Businesses pay premiums to these organizations
(except in the case of the self-insured) based on fairly explicit risk
standards (i.e., the likelihood of someone being injured on the job, and
the likely severity of those injuries). In return, the insurance carriers
pay the bills for a job-related injuries. This includes emergency room
visits; primary care physician expenses, including doctor visits; diagnostic
expenses, such as CAT scans, MRIs, x-rays, etc.; rehabilitation-related
expenses, such as physical therapy or work-hardening programs; and any
lump-sum compensation due the injured worker at the end of his/her claim
process. There is, understandably, a significant financial interest by
the insurance carriers to streamline and limit payments, which is where
IME’s come into play.
Health
Care Providers—Independent Practices and Networks
of
Providers
-
These players include the physicians,
chiropractors, nurses and nurse consultants, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, and any healthcare provider that is involved in the diagnosis,
treatment or therapy of an injured worker or patient.
-
Healthcare providers are on the front
line, intimately involved with patient care. A doctor is often the first
person who will see a patient upon injury, stays involved during the treatment,
and gets to know the patient. Doctors, as front-line providers, are thus
in a unique position to gauge the veracity or malingering of pain or injuries,
including a patient’s willingness to participate in treatment.
-
Although much of this may be gleaned
from reports and medical records, even more may be derived from a one-on-one
visit between doctor and patient, including a doctor with whom a patient
has never treated. For this reason, insurance carriers exploit this by
using "independent" (non-treating) physicians to determine prognosis and
expected length of recuperation, among other things.
Plaintiff/Workers’
Compensation Attorneys
-
Depending on to whom one speaks, workers’
compensation (plaintiff) attorneys are the bane of workers’ compensation
systems (especially insurance carriers) and the cause of the cost overrun
problems, or fierce patient advocates getting their clients their due.
The truth is probably somewhere in between.
-
In fairness to these players, it is
their involvement (and the cost of their involvement) that has instigated
some much-needed reform in work comp. Some states, notably Texas, have
revamped or are in the process of reforming the workers’ compensation process
so that there is less of a need for attorneys. Unlike states like Massachusetts,
that pay attorneys’ fees independently of the workers’ compensation claim,
Texas has so regulated the system (refusing to pay these fees and limiting
the payout claim) and provided such patient-protectionist measures, that
use of workers’ compensation attorneys is rare. California, on the other
hand, paid out over $3.9 billion in 1992 for workers’ compensation-related
attorney fees alone.
-
The trends of more recent reform, in
part due to lobbying efforts, does not exclude the participation of attorneys
to the same extent as Texas. In any case, plaintiff attorneys are likely
to remain significant players in the workers’ compensation process.
State
Workers’ Compensation Commissions
-
There is no national standard for workers’
compensation, so workers’ compensation is regulated at the state level,
except in the case of the Federal agencies, such as the United States Post
Office or the Department of Defense, which maintain their own standards
and regulations.
-
Each state has set different standards
according to local priorities, although they are frequently watching what
the others are doing as means of determining best of practices. Although
legislature approval is often necessary to set or change regulation, state
workers’ compensation commissions (or boards) are actively involved in
researching and recommending regulations and statues, educating actors
involved in the process, disseminating information, and facilitating workers’
compensation claims by acting as a neutral party between patient and insurance
carrier.
Industry
Associations and Other Resources
-
Accessing information about workers’
compensation trends, regulations, costs, or processes can be a tedious
and time-consuming processes. This is compounded by the different state-determined
regulations, which means there is little consistency across the board,
and by the fact that the insurance industry is closely held and does not
publish actual numbers or strategic visions. Nevertheless, there are a
number of resources from which information can be gleaned. These include
federal bodies that set safety standards, such as OSHA, industry associations,
and independent businesses that get paid to track such trends.
-
Back
to top
|
|
|
|
|