Post on 06-Jul-2020
transcript
Benefits, Coverage, and Costs,2012
August 2014
Washington, DC
Workers’ Compensation:
The National Academy of Social Insurance is a nonprofit, nonpartisanorganization made up of the nation’s leading experts on socialinsurance. Its mission is to advance solutions to challenges facing thenation by increasing public understanding of how social insurancecontributes to economic security. Social insurance encompasses broad-based systems that help workers and their families pool risks to avoidloss of income due to retirement, death, disability, or unemployment,and to ensure access to health care. NASI’s scope covers socialinsurance, such as Social Security, Medicare, workers’ compensation,and unemployment insurance, related public assistance, and privateemployee benefits. NASI convenes steering committees and studypanels that are charged with conducting research, issuing findings, and,in some cases, reaching recommendations based on their analysis.Members of these groups are selected for their recognized expertise andwith due consideration for the balance of disciplines and perspectivesappropriate to the project.
This research report presents new data and does not makerecommendations. It was prepared with the guidance of the StudyPanel on Workers’ Compensation Data. In accordance with proceduresof the Academy, it has been reviewed by a committee of the Board forcompleteness, accuracy, clarity, and objectivity. The Social SecurityAdministration provides funding to collect, process, and validate thedata that is used in the preparation of tables for their Annual StatisticalSupplement to the Social Security Bulletin. The Centers for Medicare &Medicaid Services also provides funding to produce selected tables fromthis report for use in their own estimates. This project also receivedfinancial support from the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programsof the U.S. Department of Labor. It also received in-kind support indata from the National Council on Compensation Insurance and theNational Association of Insurance Commissioners.
© 2014 National Academy of Social InsuranceISBN: 1-884902-61-3
Board of Directors
William J. Arnone, Chair
G. Lawrence Atkins, PresidentWilliam M. Rodgers, III,
Vice PresidentRenée Landers, Secretary
Jane L. Ross, Treasurer
Nancy J. Altman
Christine Baker
Robert Berenson
Judy Feder
Marty Ford Michael Graetz
G. William HoaglandLisa Mensah
Christopher O’Flinn
Maya Rockeymoore
Gerald Shea
Founding ChairRobert M. Ball
Executive Vice PresidentPamela J. Larson
Vice President for Income Security Policy
Virginia P. Reno
Vice President for Health PolicyLee Goldberg
1776 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Suite 400
Washington, DC 20036-1904
Telephone (202) 452-8097
Facsimile (202) 452-8111
Web: www.nasi.org Twitter: @socialinsurance
Workers’ Compensation:
Benefits, Coverage, and Costs,
2012
by
Ishita Sengupta, Marjorie L. Baldwin, and Virginia Reno
with advice of the
Study Panel on Workers’ Compensation Data
August 2014
Washington, DC
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • i
This is the 17th annual report of the NationalAcademy of Social Insurance on workers’ compensa-tion benefits, coverage, and costs. This reportpresents new data on workers’ compensation programs for 2012 and updates estimates for 2008–2011 with newly available data. The revised estimates in this report replace estimates in theAcademy’s prior reports.
Workers’ compensation provides medical care, reha-bilitation, and cash benefits for workers who areinjured on the job or who contract work related ill-nesses. The program also pays benefits to families ofworkers who die of work related injuries or illnesses.Unlike other U.S. social insurance programs, work-ers’ compensation programs are regulated by thestates, with no federal financing or administration.No federal laws set standards for “tax qualified”workers’ compensation plans or require comprehen-sive reporting of workers’ compensation coverageand costs, except to report to the CMS (Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Services) information aboutpayments and obligations for ongoing medicalexpenses pursuant to workers’ compensation laws toindividuals who are also eligible for Medicare.
The lack of uniform reporting of states’ experiencewith workers’ compensation makes it difficult toprovide national summary statistics on the program.It is necessary to piece together data from varioussources to develop national estimates of benefitspaid, costs to employers, and numbers of workerscovered.
Until 1995 the U.S. Social Security Administration(SSA) produced the only comprehensive nationaldata on workers’ compensation benefits and costswith annual estimates dating back to 1946. SSA dis-continued the series in 1995 after publishing datafor 1992–93. The National Academy of SocialInsurance (the Academy) assumed the task of report-ing national data on workers’ compensation in 1997with startup funding from the Robert WoodJohnson Foundation. The Academy published itsfirst report in 1997, extending the data series from1993 through 1995.
The Academy and its expert advisors are continuallyseeking ways to improve the report and to adapt esti-mation methods to track new developments in
workers’ compensation programs. This year’s report,has been revised in response to recommendationsfrom a subcommittee of the Data Panel, which wascharged with reviewing the report format to ensure itmeets user needs. The committee, chaired by LesBoden, surveyed a sample of users to elicit theircomments on how the report could be improved. Inresponse to their suggestions we have: 1) addedcolumns to several tables showing two and five yeartrends in benefits and costs; 2) re-ordered and re-numbered tables; and 3) deleted some appendicesthat described methods and background informa-tion. These appendices are still available on-line atwww.nasi.org.
The audience for the Academy’s reports on workers’compensation includes insurers, journalists, businessand labor leaders, employee benefit specialists, feder-al and state policymakers, and researchers working inuniversities, government, and private consultingfirms. The data from a few of the tables are pub-lished by the National Safety Council (in InjuryFacts), by the Employee Benefit Research Institute(in Employee Benefit News, Fundamentals of EmployeeBenefit Programs) and by the U.S. Social SecurityAdministration (in the Annual Statistical Supplementto the Social Security Bulletin).
Despite the Academy’s continued efforts to improvethe quality of its estimates, some limitations shouldbe acknowledged: First, there may be some workers’compensation costs not captured in our estimates ofemployer costs. We may, for example, miss someunreported expenditures for legal services or assess-ments for special funds. Second, we do not captureall the costs of claim litigation in states where theappeals structure is subsidized by tax revenues. Wedo capture litigation costs in states where the appealsstructure is fully funded by the workers’ compensa-tion premium, so there is a systematic variation inthe cost estimates for the two types of states. Finally,our estimates of monetary costs cannot capture thefull human costs of work-related injuries, illnessesand fatalities. These costs, borne by workers, familiesand communities, are significant but are beyond thescope of the report.
The Academy’s estimates inform state and federalpolicymakers in numerous ways. The federal Centersfor Medicare and Medicaid Services, for example,
Preface
use the data in their estimates and projections ofhealth care spending in the United States. TheNational Institute for Occupational Safety andHealth uses the data to track the costs of workplaceinjuries in the United States. The InternationalAssociation of Industrial Accident Boards andCommissions (the organization of state and provin-cial agencies that administer workers’ compensationin the United States and Canada) uses the informa-tion to track and compare the performance ofworkers’ compensation programs in the UnitedStates with similar systems in Canada.
AcknowledgementsThe Academy expresses its deep appreciation to staffmembers in 50 state and District of Columbia work-ers’ compensation offices, who provide data on theirjurisdictions each year. Without support from thesesources, constructing this annual data series wouldnot be possible. The Academy also acknowledges theU.S. Social Security Administration, Centers forMedicare & Medicaid Services, and the Office ofWorkers’ Compensation Programs of the U.S.Department of Labor (DOL) for their support.
Members of the Academy’s Study Panel on Workers’Compensation Data give generously of their timeand knowledge in advising on data sources and pre-sentation, interpreting results, and reviewing thedraft report. Members of the Panel are listed on pageiii, but I would like especially to acknowledge LesBoden (Boston University), his committee members,
Christine Baker (California Department of IndustrialRelations), Keith Bateman (Property and CasualtyInsurers Association of America), and JimEllenberger (formerly Deputy Commissioner of theVirginia Employment Commission) and all the userswho responded to their survey. Special thanks arealso due to John Burton (Rutgers and CornellUniversity), Jeff Eddinger, (National Council onCompensation Insurance), Frank Neuhauser(University of California, Berkeley) Eric Nordman(National Association of Insurance Commissioners),Hilery Simpson (Bureau of Labor Statistics), andGary Steinberg (Department of Labor) all of whomprovided the Academy with data and expert adviceon particularly difficult data issues.
Additionally, I greatly appreciate the important sug-gestions made by Terry Bogyo, independent workers’comp researcher, Canada, Doug Holmes, UWC(Strategic Services on Unemployment and Workers’Compensation), Mike Manley, Oregon Departmentof Business and Consumer Services, and BobSteggert, former Vice President, Casualty Claims forMarriott International. Finally, this report benefitedfrom helpful comments during Board review byShelby Hallmark, Fred Kilbourne and RoselynBonanti. We appreciate the time and effort all theseindividuals devoted to reviewing the report.
Marjorie BaldwinChair, Study Panel on Workers’ Compensation Data
ii NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • iii
Marjorie Baldwin, ChairProfessor, W. P. Carey School ofBusiness, Department ofEconomics, Arizona StateUniversity
Christine BakerDirector, California Departmentof Industrial Relations
Leslie BodenProfessor, School of PublicHealth, Boston University
Terry BogyoIndependent Workers’ CompResearcher, Canada
John F. Burton, Jr.,Professor Emeritus, School ofManagement & Labor Relations,Rutgers University, and School ofIndustrial and Labor Relations,Cornell University
Aaron CatlinDeputy Director, NationalHealth Statistics Group, Officeof the Actuary, Centers forMedicare and Medicaid Services
Jeff EddingerSenior Divisional Executive,Regulatory Business Manage-ment, National Council onCompensation Insurance, Inc.
James N. EllenbergerFormer Deputy Commissioner,Virginia EmploymentCommission
Douglas J. HolmesPresident, UWC StrategicServices on Unemploymentand Workers’ Compensation
Kate KimpanVice President, Workers’Compensation ProgramsDade Moeller & Associates
Jennifer Wolf HorejshExecutive Director, InternationalAssociation of IndustrialAccident Boards andCommissions
Mike ManleyResearch Coordinator, OregonDepartment of Consumer andBusiness Services
Frank NeuhauserExecutive Director, Center forthe Study of Social Insurance,University of California, Berkeley
Eric NordmanDirector of Regulatory Services& the CIPR, NationalAssociation of InsuranceCommissioners
Hank PattersonPartner, Patterson Harkavy LLP
Emily A. SpielerProfessor of Law, NortheasternUniversity School of Law
Seth A. SeaburyAssociate Professor, Departmentof Emergency Medicine andLeonard D. Schaeffer Center forHealth Policy and Economics, University of Southern California
Robert Steggert Retired, Marriott International, Inc.
Hilery SimpsonAssistant Commissioner, Officeof Safety, Health, and WorkingConditions, U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics
Gary SteinbergActing Director, Office ofWorkers’ CompensationPrograms, U.S. Department ofLabor
Alex SwedlowExecutive Vice President,Research, California Workers’Compensation Institute
Ramona TanabeDeputy Director and Counsel,Workers Compensation Research Institute
John JankowskiProject Officer, Social SecurityAdministration
Benjamin WashingtonEconomist, National HealthStatistics Group, Office of theActuary, Centers for Medicareand Medicaid Services
William J. WiatrowskiAssociate Commissioner, Office of Compensation &Working Conditions, U.S.Bureau of Labor Statistics
Study Panel on Workers’ Compensation Data
iv NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • v
Table of ContentsHighlights. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
National Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
State Trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Trends in Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Costs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background on Workers’ Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
History of Workers’ Compensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Workers’ Compensation Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sources of Workers’ Compensation Insurance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Covered Employment and Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Methods for Estimating Covered Employment and Wages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Estimates of Covered Wages and Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Workers’ Compensation Benefits Paid. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Methods for Estimating Benefits Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
National Estimates of Benefits Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Estimates of Benefits Paid by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Employer Costs for Workers’ Compensation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Methods for Estimating Employer Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
National Estimates of Employer Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Estimates of Employer Costs by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Comparison of NASI Estimates of Employer Costs to Other Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Incidence of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Estimates from BLS Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Estimates from NCCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Addendum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Other Disability Benefit Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Benefits Incurred vs. Benefits Paid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendix A: Coverage Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Appendix B: Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Federal Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Longshore and Harbor Workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Coal Miners with Black Lung Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Energy Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Workers Exposed to Radiation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Veterans of Military Service. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Railroad Employees and Merchant Seamen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Appendix C: Workers’ Compensation under State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
TablesTable 1: Summary of Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2011-2012 . . . . . . . .2
Table 2: Workers’ Compensation Covered Workers and Covered Wages, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . .10
Table 3: Workers’ Compensation Covered Workers, by State, 2008-2012 (in thousands) . . . . . . . .12
Table 4: Workers’ Compensation Covered Wages, by State, 2008-2012 (in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . .14
Table 5: Workers’ Compensation Benefits by Type of Insurer and Share of Medical Benefits, 1962-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Table 6: Workers’ Compensation Employer Paid Benefits under Deductible Provisions, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18
Table 7: Percentage Distribution of Workers’ Compensation Benefit Payments by Type of Insurer: With and Without Deductibles, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Table 8: Workers’ Compensation Benefits by Type of Insurer and Share of Medical Benefits, by State, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Table 9: Workers’ Compensation Total Benefits Paid and Five-Year Percent Change, by State, 2008-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24
Table 10: Workers’ Compensation Medical Benefits Paid and Five-Year Percent Change, by State, 2008-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26
Table 11: Workers’ Compensation Cash Benefits Paid and Five-Year Percent Change, by State, 2008-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28
Table 12: Workers’ Compensation Total Benefits Paid Per $100 of Covered Wages by State, 2008-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Table 13: Workers’ Compensation Employer Costs by Type of Insurer, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33
Table 14: Workers’ Compensation Employer Costs Per $100 of Covered Wages by State, 2008-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34
Table 15: Workers’ Compensation Non-federal Employer Costs Per $100 of Covered Wages: NASI vs. Burton (based on BLS data) Estimates, 1996-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36
Table 16: Workers’ Compensation Benefit/Cost Ratios, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37
Table 17: Fatal Occupational Injuries-All and Private Industry, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40
Table 18: Non-Fatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Among Private Industry Employers, 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42
Table 19: Number of Workers’ Compensation Claims Per 100,000 Insured Workers: Private Carriers in 37 Jurisdictions, 1992-2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43
Table 20: Dual Eligibles: Social Security Disability Insurance Beneficiaries with Workers’ Compensation or Public Disability Benefits, 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Table A: Documenting Workers’ Compensation Coverage Estimates, 2012 Annual Averages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
Table B1: Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, Benefits and Costs, 2002–2012 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Table B2: Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, Benefits, Costs, and Number of DBA Death Claims, 2002–2012 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58
Table B3: Black Lung Benefits Act, Benefits and Costs, 2002–2012 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60
vi NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • vii
Table B4: Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Part B and Part E Benefits and Costs, 2002-2012 (in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .61
Table B5: Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, Benefits Paid as of March 29, 2012 (benefits in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Table B6: Federal Veterans’ Compensation Program, Compensation Paid in Fiscal Year 2012 (benefits in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62
Table C: Workers’ Compensation State Laws as of January 2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64
FiguresFigure 1: Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Costs Per $100 of Covered Wages,
1980–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Figure 2: Workers’ Compensation Medical and Cash Benefits Per $100 of Covered Wages, 1980–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
Figure 3: Percentage Share of Medical and Cash Benefits, 1960–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
Figure 4: Types of Disabilities in Workers’ Compensation Cases with Cash Benefits, 2009: Percent of Cases and Percent of Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Figure 5: Non-Federal Workers’ Compensation Costs Per $100 of Payroll 1996–2012: Comparison of NASI and Burton (based on BLS data) Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39
Figure 6: Private Industry Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Incidence Rates 1992-2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41
viii NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
HighlightsThis report provides data on benefits, costs, and coverage for state and federal workers’ compensationprograms in 2012. Its purpose is to facilitate policy-making and comparisons with other social insuranceand employee benefit programs. The report has beenproduced annually by the National Academy ofSocial Insurance since 1997. Key trends observed inthis year’s data are summarized below:
National Trends � In 2012 workers’ compensation covered an esti-
mated 127.9 million workers, an increase of 1.6percent from the previous year, but still lessthan the number of workers covered in 2008.(Tables 1 and 3)
� In 2012, workers’ compensation total benefitspaid increased by 1.3 percent, from $61.0 bil-lion in 2011 to $61.9 billion. Over the five yearperiod 2008 to 2012, benefits increased by 5.3percent. (Table 9)
� In 2012, medical payments to providersincreased by 0.9 percent (to $30.8 billion); andcash benefits to injured workers increased by1.8 percent (to $31.0 billion) from their levelsin 2011. Over the five year period 2008 to2012 medical benefits increased by 6.1 percentand cash benefits increased by 3.9 percent.(Table 10 and 11)
� Employers’ costs for workers’ compensationinsurance and benefits paid, increased by 6.9percent in 2012, to $83.2 billion. Over the fiveyear period 2008 to 2012, however, costsincreased by only 3.2 percent. (Table 13)
� Employers’ costs as a share of covered wagesincreased by $0.03 in 2012, to $1.32 per $100of covered wages; benefits paid to injured work-ers decreased by $0.03, to $0.98 per $100 ofcovered wages. (Table 1 and Figure 1)
State Trends� Between 2010 and 2012, covered employment
increased in every state. But, in 2012, 45 statesstill had fewer covered workers than in 2008.(Table 3).
� Between 2010 and 2012, every state also experi-enced an increase in covered wages. Over thefive year period 2008 to 2012 covered wagesincreased in every state except one. (Table 4)
� Between 2010 and 2012, the total amount ofworkers’ compensation benefits paid (medical +cash benefits) increased in 35 jurisdictions.Over the five year period 2008 to 2012 how-ever, benefits increased in only 25 jurisdictions.(Table 9)
� In 2012, the share of total benefits (medical +cash benefits) paid for medical care exceeded 50percent in 33 states. (Table 8)
� Between 2008 and 2012, employers’ costs forworkers’ compensation, per $100 of coveredpayroll, decreased in 41 jurisdictions. (Table 14)
� In 2012, state funds have continued to declinein importance as a source of workers’ compen-sation insurance. (Table 5)
Trends in Workers’ CompensationBenefits and CostsThe Academy’s measures of benefits and costs aredesigned to reflect the aggregate experience of twostakeholder groups: workers who rely on compensa-tion for workplace injuries and employers who paythe bills. In 2012, workers’ compensation benefitsand costs increased, as did the number of workerscovered (Table 1).
Total workers’ compensation benefits (cash benefitspaid to injured workers and medical payments fortheir health care) were $61.9 billion in 2012, a 1.3percent increase from 2011. Medical paymentsincreased by 0.9 percent, to $30.8 billion, and cashbenefits increased by 1.8 percent, to $31.0 billion.When measured relative to $100 of covered wages,total benefits decreased by three cents (to $0.98 per$100 of covered wages); medical payments decreasedby two cents (to $0.49 per $100 of covered wages),and cash benefits decreased by one cent (to $0.49per $100 of covered wages).
Historically, workers’ compensation benefits as ashare of covered wages have been unequally dividedbetween medical payments and cash benefits, withcash benefits accounting for more than two-thirds of
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 1
benefits in some years. Since 1995, however, cashbenefits per $100 of covered wages have declined,while medical payments have increased or remainedconstant (Figure 2). As a result, workers’ compensa-tion benefits have been almost equally dividedbetween medical payments and cash benefits since2006. In 2012, cash benefits accounted for 50.1 per-cent of total benefits paid (Figure 3).
Workers’ compensation costs to employers were$83.2 billion in 2012, an increase of 6.9 percentfrom 2011. The number of workers covered byworkers’ compensation increased by 1.6 percent, andcovered wages increased by 4.3 percent. When mea-sured relative to $100 of covered wages, employercosts increased by three cents (to $1.32 per $100 ofcovered wages).
The increases in workers’ compensation costs andcoverage reflect, at least in part, the U.S. economyon its way to recovery in 2012 with slow but positive
employment and wage growth. As employmentincreases, the number of workers covered by workers’compensation increases, along with the number ofwork-related injuries, and workers’ compensationbenefits and costs. In comparing trends over time,therefore, it is useful to consider workers’ compensa-tion benefits and costs, controlling for the growth incovered wages.
Despite the uptick in employers’ costs in 2012, costsper $100 of covered wages were lower in the years2008 to 2012 than at any time over the last threedecades (Figure 1). Benefits per $100 of coveredwages were lower in the years 2006 to 2012 than atany time since 1980-81. (Figure 1)
Table 1Summary of Workers' Compensation Benefits, Coverage, and Costs 2011-2012
PercentAggregate Amounts 2011 2012 Change
Covered workers (in thousands) 125,833 127,904 1.6Covered wages (in billions) $6,049 $6,309 4.3 Workers' compensation benefits paid (in billions) 61.0 61.9 1.3
Medical benefits 30.6 30.8 0.9Cash benefits 30.5 31.0 1.8
Employer costs for workers' compensation (in billions) 77.8 83.2 6.9
DollarAmount per $100 of covered wages Change
Benefits paid $1.01 $0.98 -0.03Medical payments 0.51 0.49 -0.02Cash payments to workers 0.50 0.49 -0.01
Employer costs 1.29 1.32 0.03
Notes: Benefits are payments in the calendar year to injured workers and to providers of their medical care.Costs are employer expenditures in the calendar year for workers' compensation benefits. Costs for self-insuring employers are benefits paid in the calendar year plus the administrative costs associated with providing those benefits. Costs for employers whopurchase insurance include the insurance premiums paid during the calendar year plus the payments of benefits under large deductible plans during the year.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates.
2 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Workers’ compensation benefits, coverage and costs increased
in 2012.
Background on Workers’ CompensationThis section of the report, covering backgroundmaterial that is repeated annually, describes the history of workers’ compensation insurance in theUnited States; the current structure of state workers’compensation programs; types of benefits paid; andhow workers’ compensation is financed. Reporting ofdetailed program data for 2012 begins on page 9.
History of Workers’ CompensationWorkers’ compensation was the first social insuranceprogram adopted in developed countries. Germany
enacted the first modern workers’ compensation laws,known as Sickness and Accident Laws, in 1884 underChancellor Otto von Bismarck (Clayton 2004). Thenext such laws were enacted in England in 1897.
The first workers’ compensation law in the UnitedStates was enacted in 1908 to cover certain federalcivilian workers. Most states adopted workers’ com-pensation laws in a relatively short period between1910 and 1920. The first state laws that survivedconstitutional challenges were passed in 1911 byNew Jersey and Wisconsin.1 The last state to pass aworkers’ compensation law was Mississippi, in 1948.By 2012, workers’ compensation coverage was 100years old in 15 states (Fishback and Kantor 1996).
Figure 1Workers’ Compensation Benefits* and Costs** Per $100 of Covered Wages, 1980–2012
* Benefits are payments in the calendar year to injured workers and to providers of their medical care.
** Costs are employer expenditures in the calendar year for workers' compensation benefits, administrative costs, and/or insurance premiums.Costs for self-insuring employers are benefits paid in the calendar year plus the administrative costs associated with providing those benefits.Costs for employers who purchase insurance include the insurance premiums paid during the calendar year plus the payments of benefits underlarge deductible plans during the year. The insurance premiums must pay for all of the compensable consequences of the injuries that occur dur-ing the year, including the benefits paid in the current as well as future years.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates.
0.96 0.97 1.04 1.05
1.09
1.17 1.23
1.29 1.34
1.46
1.57
1.65 1.65
1.53 1.47
1.35
1.26
1.17 1.13 1.12
1.06 1.10
1.13 1.16 1.13
1.09
0.99
1.76
1.67
1.58
1.50 1.49
1.64
1.79
1.86
1.94
2.17
2.05
1.83
1.62
1.36 1.42
1.74 1.74 1.72
1.35
1.58
1.48
1.30
1.03
1.25
1.00
1.32
1.01 0.96
0.99
2.04
2.18 2.162.13
1.51
1.35
1.46
1.61
1.29
0.98
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
Benefits
Employer Costs
201220112010200920082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992199119901989198819871986198519841983198219811980
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 3
1 The New Jersey law was enacted on April 3, 1911, signed by Governor Woodrow Wilson on April 4, and took effect on July 4, 1911(Calderone 2011). The Wisconsin law was enacted and took effect on May 3, 1911 (Krohm 2011).
Before workers’ compensation laws were enacted, aninjured worker’s primary legal remedy for a workrelated injury was to file a tort suit claiming negli-
gence on the part of their employer.2 Employerscould use three common law defenses to avoid liabil-ity: assumption of risk (showing the injury resultedfrom an ordinary hazard of employment of whichthe worker should have been aware);3 fellow worker
rule (showing the injury was caused by a fellowworker’s negligence); or contributory negligence(showing the worker’s own negligence contributed tothe injury, regardless of any fault of the employer).Given the available defenses, it was not surprisingthat employers generally prevailed in court.Employers were, however, at risk for substantial andunpredictable losses if a worker’s lawsuit was success-ful. Litigation also created friction betweenemployers and workers so that both sides becameincreasingly dissatisfied with the status quo, settingthe stage for reform.
Initial reforms took the form of employer liabilityacts, which eliminated some of the employer’s com-mon law defenses. Nonetheless, employees still had
4 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Figure 2Workers’ Compensation Medical and Cash Benefits Per $100 of Covered Wages, 1980–2012
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates.
0.28 0.29
0.34 0.36
0.39
0.43
0.47
0.50
0.57
0.62
0.66 0.69
0.66
0.58
0.54
0.50 0.48 0.48 0.48
0.47
0.50 0.52
0.55 0.53 0.51
0.47 0.46 0.49
0.68 0.68
0.70 0.71 0.73
0.78 0.80
0.82 0.84
0.89
0.94
0.99 0.96
0.87 0.89
0.81
0.76
0.68 0.65
0.63
0.60 0.60 0.61 0.61
0.52 0.50 0.50
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
Medical
Cash
0.61
0.53
2004
0.61 0.59
0.53
0.50
2009
2010
0.51
0.49
2011
0.50
0.51
0.49
0.49
2012
0.34
2 Some injured workers received voluntary compensation from their employers or medical benefits paid through the employer’s liabil-ity insurance, but many workers received no compensation at all.
3 A more complete definition is provided by Willborn et al. (2012): “The assumption of risk doctrine barred recovery for the ordinaryrisks of employment; the extraordinary risks of employment, if the worker knew of them or might reasonably have been expected toknow of them; and the risks arising from the carelessness, ignorance, or incompetency of fellow servants.”
By 2012, workers’ compensation coverage was 100 years old
in 15 states.
$0.00
$0.20
$0.40
$0.60
$0.80
$1.00
$1.20
Medical
Cash
0.61 0.59
0.53
0.50
2009
2010
0.51
0.49
2011
0.50
0.51
0.49
0.49
2012
0.34
the burden of proving negligence on the part of theemployer, which remained a significant obstacle torecovery of damages (Burton and Mitchell 2003).4
Ultimately, both employers and employees favoredworkers’ compensation legislation to ensure thatworkers who sustained occupational injuries, or con-tracted occupational diseases, received predictableand timely compensation. As a quid pro quo, work-ers’ compensation became the ‘exclusive remedy’ foroccupational injuries and diseases, and an employer’sliability was limited to the statutory benefits specifiedin the state workers’ compensation act.5
The adoption of state workers’ compensation pro-grams has been called a significant event in thenation’s economic, legal, and political history. Passageof the laws required prodigious efforts on the part ofbusiness and labor leaders in each state to reach
agreements on the specifics of the laws. Essentially,business and labor reached a grand compromise inwhich injured workers gave up the right to sue theiremployers in return for guaranteed benefits, andemployers gave up their common law defenses inreturn for statutory limits on coverage.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 5
4 As a result, the employers’ liability approach was abandoned in all jurisdictions and industries except the railroads, where it still exists.
5 Under the exclusive remedy concept, the worker accepts workers’ compensation as payment in full and gives up the right to sue.There are limited exceptions to the exclusive remedy concept in some states, such as when there is an intentional injury of the employee or when an employer violates a safety regulation.
Workers’ compensation is a no-faultinsurance plan. Workers are
guaranteed coverage, regardless of responsibility; employers’ losses arelimited, regardless of negligence.
Figure 3Percentage Share of Medical and Cash Benefits, 1960-2012
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Cash Wage Replacement
Medical Benefits
Per
cent
age
Sha
re
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Today, each of the 50 states, the District ofColumbia, and U.S. territories has its own workerscompensation program. Separate U.S. governmentprograms cover federal civilian employees and specif-ic high risk workers (e.g. energy employees, workers’exposed to radiation, veterans of military service).State workers’ compensation programs vary in termsof who is allowed to provide insurance, whichinjuries or illnesses are compensable, and the level ofbenefits provided. However, there is consistencyacross states in central features of the programs:
� With the exception of Texas (and nowOklahoma), workers’ compensation insurancecoverage is mandatory for employers in allstates,6 with limited exemptions for employerswith a small number of employees, or workersin specific classifications, such as agricultural ordomestic employees.
� Workers’ compensation pays 100 percent ofmedical costs for injured workers from the dayof injury, and cash benefits for lost work timeafter a three to seven day waiting period.
� With the exception of Washington state,7 work-ers’ compensation is financed exclusively byemployers in all states. Employers purchaseworkers’ compensation insurance from privateinsurers or a state insurance fund, or some largeemployers may self-insure.8
Workers’ Compensation Benefits Medical only cases. Most workers’ compensation casesdo not involve lost work time in excess of the wait-ing period for cash benefits, so the only costs aremedical payments to providers. “Medical only” casesare the most common type of workers’ compensationclaim, but they represent only a small share of overallpayments. According to the National Council onCompensation Insurance (NCCI), medical only
cases accounted for 75 percent of workers’ compen-sation cases, but only 6 percent of total benefitpayments, in the 38 NCCI member states for policyyears spanning 1998–2009 (NCCI 2013b).
Temporary disability cases. Temporary total disability(TTD) benefits are paid when a work related injuryor illness temporarily prevents a worker from return-ing to their pre-injury job, or another job for thesame employer, for a period of time. Temporary totaldisability cases are the most common type of claiminvolving cash benefits, accounting for more than 61percent of all cases involving cash benefits, but lessthan 29 percent of cash benefits paid (Figures 4).
Most workers who receive TTD benefits fully recov-er and return to work, at which time benefits end. In some cases, however, injured workers return towork before they are physically able to resume theirformer job duties. In these cases a worker may beassigned to restricted duties or shorter hours at lowerwages or differential pay. When injured workersreturn to work at less than their pre-injury wage,they may be eligible for temporary partial disability(TPD) benefits.
Most states pay tax exempt weekly benefits for tem-porary total disability that replace approximatelytwo-thirds of the worker’s pre-injury wage, subject tomaximum and minimum benefit levels that varyfrom state to state. As of January 2012, the maxi-mum weekly TTD benefit ranged from a high of$1,457 in Iowa, to a low of $437 in Mississippi. Theminimum weekly benefit ranged from a low of $20in Florida, to a high of $435 in North Dakota.9
Permanent disability cases. Some injured workersexperience work related injuries or illnesses thatresult in permanent impairments. Eligibility for permanent disability benefits is determined after theinjured worker reaches maximum medical improvement (the point at which further medical
6 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
6 Recently the Oklahoma state legislature passed a bill signed by the governor making it the second state after Texas to allow employersthe choice to opt out of the state workers’ compensation system. The opt-out provision of the bill would allow employers to offer in-jured workers alternative benefit systems based on the Federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (Postal 2013).
7 In Washington state, workers pay part of workers’ compensation costs through payroll deductions. See footnote in Table 14.
8 Some economists argue that workers pay a substantial portion of program costs indirectly in the form of lower wages (Leigh et al.2000).
9 Details on benefit and coverage provisions of state laws are compiled in Workers’ Compensation Laws as of January 2012, issued jointlyby the IAIABC (International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions) and the WCRI (Workers CompensationResearch Institute) and are summarized in Appendix C.
intervention is no longer expected to improve functional capacity). Permanent total disability(PTD) benefits are paid to workers who are unableto work at all because of a job related injury or ill-ness. Permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits arepaid to workers who have permanent impairmentsthat reduce their earnings capacity but do not com-pletely preclude their ability to work.
The bulk of cash benefits for workers’ compensationgo to permanent disability claims, of which perma-nent partial disability cases are more common. PPDcases account for less than 38 percent of cases involv-ing cash benefits but more than 62 percent of cashbenefits paid. Permanent total disability cases are rel-atively rare, accounting for less than 1 percent ofcases involving cash benefits, and 7 percent of totalpayments for those cases (Figures 4).10
States differ in their methods for determiningwhether a worker is entitled to permanent partialdisability benefits, the extent of permanent disability,
and the amount of benefits to be paid (Barth andNiss 1999; Burton 2008). In some states, permanentpartial disability benefits begin when maximummedical improvement is achieved. In others, perma-nent disability benefits are simply an extension oftemporary disability benefits until the injured workerreturns to employment. Many states impose limitson the maximum duration or dollar amount of per-manent disability benefits.
Sources of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Non-federal employers pay for workers’ compensa-tion by purchasing insurance from a privateinsurance carrier or from a state workers’ compensa-tion insurance plan (called a state fund), or byself-insuring. Many states also have special workers’compensation funds to cover exceptional circum-stances. Federal workers’ compensation insurancecovers Federal civilian employees, and some privatesector workers in high-risk jobs.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 7
Figure 4Types of Disabilities in Workers’ Compensation Cases with Cash Benefits, 2009
28.6%
62.0%
37.7%
61.6% Total
Total
0.3%0.4% 7.1% Permanent Total
2.4% Fatalities
Percent of Cases Percent of Benefits
Cases classified as permanent partial include cases that are closed with lump sum settlements. Benefits paid in cases classified aspermanent partial, permanent total and fatalites can include any temporary total disability benefits also paid in such cases. Thedata are from the first report from the NCCI Annual Statistical Bulletin.
Source: NCCI 2013, Annual Statistical Bulletin, Exhibits X and XII.
10 Note that when WC claims are classified into discrete types, this is typically done by labeling the claim classification by the most se-vere type of disability benefit received. For example, a permanent partial disability beneficiary has typically also received temporarydisability benefits, but the entire cost of cash benefits in the claim is ascribed to its permanent partial disability claim type.
Private insurance. Workers’ compensation policieswritten by private insurers operate much like auto-mobile or homeowners’ insurance. Employerspurchase insurance for a premium that varies accord-ing to expected risk and the amount of a deductible,if any. The insurer pays all workers’ compensationbenefits, but the employer is responsible for reim-bursing the insurer for benefits paid, up to thespecified deductible amount. In return for acceptinga policy with a deductible, the employer pays a lowerpremium. Deductibles may be written into an insur-ance policy on a per injury basis, an aggregate basis,or a combination of a per injury basis with an aggre-gate cap. States vary in the maximum deductiblesthey allow in workers’ compensation insurance.
State funds. In 23 states workers’ compensationinsurance is provided to some (or all) employers by astate agency. In general, these ‘state funds’ are estab-lished by an act of the state legislature, and aredesignated as exclusive or competitive: An exclusivestate fund is, by statute, the sole provider of workers’compensation insurance in a state. In 2012, fourstates had exclusive state funds. A competitive statefund competes with other insurers in the state, sothese state funds are sometimes difficult to identify.For this report, we define an insurer as a competitivestate fund if: 1) The insurer sells workers’ compensa-tion policies to private sector employers in thevoluntary insurance market; and 2) The insurer isexempt from federal taxes. According to these crite-ria, in 2012, 18 states had competitive state funds.11
One state fund fit neither of these categories. In2012, South Carolina had a non-exclusive state fundwhich provided workers’ compensation insurance forstate and local government employees but did notwrite policies for private employers.
Self-insurance. Many large employers choose to self-insure for workers’ compensation. Employers areallowed to self-insure in all but two states.12 Whereself-insurance is permitted, employers must apply forpermission from the regulatory authority, anddemonstrate they have the financial resources tocover their expected losses. Some states permit
groups of employers in the same industry or tradeassociation to self-insure through group self-insurance.
Special funds. State guaranty funds ensure payment ofbenefits to injured workers in cases where privateinsurance carriers or self-insured employers becomeinsolvent. Second injury funds reimburse employers orinsurance carriers in cases where an employee with apre-existing impairment experiences another workrelated injury or illness. The second injury fund payscosts associated with the prior condition, to encour-age employers to hire injured workers who want toreturn to work. The current employer is responsibleonly for workers’ compensation benefits associatedwith the second injury or illness. Second injuryfunds are financed through assessments on employ-ers, and, in limited jurisdictions, with general fundmonies13.
Federal programs. The federal government coversworkers’ compensation benefits for federal civilianemployees under the Federal EmployeesCompensation Act (FECA). Federal programs alsocover some private sector workers, including coalminers with black lung disease, longshoremen andharbor workers, employees of overseas contractorswith the U.S. government, energy employeesexposed to certain hazardous materials, workersengaged in manufacturing atomic bombs, and veterans injured while on active duty in the armedforces. (More details about these federal programs areprovided in Appendix B.)
The workers’ compensation system involves numer-ous stakeholder groups (employers, insurers, workers,
8 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
11 In 2012, North Dakota, Ohio, Washington, and Wyoming had exclusive state funds, Competitive state funds operated in: Arizona,California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma,Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, and Utah.
12 North Dakota and Wyoming require all employers to obtain workers’ compensation insurance from their exclusive state funds. Ohioand Washington have exclusive state funds but employers also have the option to self-insure.
13 See Sources and Methods 2012 on the NASI website for further details on special funds, second injury funds and guaranty funds.
NASI estimates of benefits and costsare not designed to assess the performance of the insurance
industry, or the adequacy of benefitspaid to injured workers.
medical providers, state and federal governments)but the estimates presented in this report reflect theaggregate experience of only two: workers who relyon compensation for workplace injuries and employ-ers who pay the bills. NASI measures are notdesigned to assess the performance of the insuranceindustry or insurance markets; other organizationsanalyze insurance trends.14 The estimates are alsonot designed to measure the adequacy of benefits paidto injured workers.
Covered Employmentand WagesMethods for Estimating CoveredEmployment and WagesBecause there is no national system for counting thenumber of workers covered by workers’ compensa-tion, covered workers and wages must be estimated.NASI’s methodology (for all states except Texas) isdesigned to count the number of workers who arelegally required to be covered by workers’ compensa-tion under state laws. The Academy uses the numberof workers, and amount of wages, covered by unem-ployment insurance (UI) in each state as the startingpoint for its estimates. From these bases we subtractthe number of workers, and corresponding amountof wages, that are not required to be covered byworkers’ compensation according to each state’sstatute (e.g. workers in small firms, agriculturalworkers). In Texas, where coverage is optional foremployers, we apply the proportion of workersemployed in firms that opt in to workers’ compensa-tion to the UI base.
NASI methodology may undercount the actualnumber of workers (and wages) covered becausesome employers who are not required to carry work-ers’ compensation do so anyway. For example,self-employed persons are not typically required tocarry unemployment or workers’ compensation
insurance, but in some states self-employed personsmay voluntarily elect to be covered. In states withexemptions for small firms, some small firms mayalso voluntarily purchase workers’ compensationinsurance.
On the other hand, NASI methodology may overes-timate the number of workers (and wages) becausesome employers are not in compliance with theirstate’s workers’ compensation or unemploymentcompensation laws. Every state has a program todetect and penalize employers who fail to report orcover employees under state workers’ compensationor unemployment compensation statutes, but nodefinitive national study has documented the extentof noncompliance. (For more details on theAcademy’s methods for estimating coverage refer toAppendix A.)
Estimates of Covered Wages and WorkersIn 2012, 97.2 percent of all UI–covered workers andwages were covered by workers’ compensation.15
Workers’ compensation covered an estimated 127.9million workers, (90 percent of the employed work-force16) an increase of 1.6 percent from the numberof workers covered in 2011 (125.8 million). Totalwages of covered workers were $6.3 trillion in 2012,an increase of 4.3 percent from 2011 (Table 2).
Between 2010 and 2012, all states experienced anincrease in both covered wages and covered workers.In the five year period from 2008 to 2012, all states
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 9
14 The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) and state rating bureaus, for example, assess insurance developments inthe states and advise regulators and insurers on proposed insurance rates.
15 According to unpublished estimates provided by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, only 3 percent of all employees who worked for em-ployers who participated in the BLS National Compensation Survey (NCS) were employed in establishments that reported zeroworkers’ compensation costs. The 3 percent figure was for all employees covered by the survey, as well as for employees in the privatesector and employees in the state and local government sector. NASI estimate of legally required coverage has a national average(97.2 percent of all UI covered workers in 2012) that is virtually identical to the workers’ compensation coverage shown by the NCS.
16 According to BLS, Total Employed Workforce in the United States was 143 million in December 2012.
In 2012, nearly 128 million workers, or approximately 90 percent of theU.S. workforce, were covered by
workers’ compensation.
except Nevada experienced an increase in coveredwages, but only five states and the District ofColumbia experienced an increase in the number ofcovered workers (Tables 3 and 4). Between 2008 and 2012, North Dakota experienced the largestgrowth in covered workers (17.9% increase) and covered wages (55.6% increase). Nevada experiencedthe largest decreases in covered wages (-9.9%) andcovered workers (-8.6%). Workers’ compensationcoverage rules did not change significantly between2008 and 2012, so differences in growth rates ofcovered employment and wages across states
primarily reflect differences in the states’ growth ratesof employment and wages.
10 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 2Workers' Compensation Covered Workers and Covered Wages, 1992–2012
Total Workers Total Wages Year (in thousands) Percent Change (in billions) Percent Change
1992 104,300 0.6 $ 2,700 5.7
1993 106,200 1.8 2,802 3.8
1994 109,400 3.0 2,949 5.2
1995 112,800 3.1 3,123 5.9
1996 114,773 1.7 3,337 6.9
1997 118,145 2.9 3,591 7.6
1998 121,485 2.8 3,885 8.2
1999 124,349 2.4 4,151 6.8
2000 127,141 2.2 4,495 8.3
2001 126,972 -0.1 4,604 2.4
2002 125,603 -1.1 4,615 0.2
2003 124,685 -0.7 4,717 2.2
2004 125,878 1.0 4,953 5.0
2005 128,158 1.8 5,213 5.3
2006 130,339 1.7 5,544 6.3
2007 131,734 1.1 5,857 5.6
2008 130,643 -0.8 5,954 1.7
2009 124,856 -4.4 5,675 -4.7
2010 124,454 -0.3 5,820 2.6
2011 125,833 1.1 6,049 3.9
2012 127,904 1.6 6,309 4.3
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates. See Appendix A.
All individual states experienced increases in the number of coveredworkers and the amount of coveredwages between 2010 and 2012.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 11
Workers’ CompensationBenefits PaidMethods for Estimating BenefitsPaidThe Academy’s estimates of workers’ compensationbenefits paid are based on three main data sources:1) responses to the annual questionnaire theAcademy distributes to state agencies; 2) data pur-chased from A.M. Best, a private company thatspecializes in collecting insurance data and ratinginsurance companies; and 3) data from the NationalCouncil on Compensation Insurance (NCCI).Together, the data from state agencies and A.M. Bestallow us to piece together estimates of workers’ com-pensation benefits paid under polices with privatecarriers or state funds, or by self-insured employers.The U.S. Department of Labor provides data onbenefits paid through federal programs. The NCCIdata are the main data source for estimating medicalpayments to providers.
The primary sources of data on benefits paid are theresponses of state agencies to the Academy’s ques-tionnaire on workers’ compensation benefits andcosts. The questionnaire is distributed annually tostate agencies overseeing the workers’ compensationprograms. This year responses were received from 45jurisdictions, for a response rate of 90 percent. States vary in their ability to provide complete pro-gram data. The most common problems are inreporting amounts of benefits paid by employersunder deductible policies, and by self-insuredemployers. If states were unable to report benefitspaid by self-insured employers, these amounts wereimputed based on estimates of self-insured payrollsin the state. Benefits provided under group self-insurance are included with self-insured benefits inthis report.
The A.M. Best data supplement the state survey datain cases where the survey data are incomplete, miss-ing, or determined to be incorrect. The A.M. Bestdata used for this report show benefits paid in eachstate for 2008 through 2012. The data include infor-mation for all private carriers in every state and for18 of the 23 state funds, but do not include infor-mation about benefits paid by the other five state
funds, by self-insured employers, by employers underdeductible policies, or by special funds.17
Medical benefits were estimated based on informa-tion from the National Council on CompensationInsurance for most states. Where NCCI data werenot available, medical benefits were based on reportsfrom the states. Benefits paid through special funds,second injury funds and guarantee funds were esti-mated from the state survey data, and from thewebsite of the state agency’s workers’ compensationdivision. For the last seven years, NASI has reporteddata on these funds and has included their benefitspayments in the national estimates of total benefitsin Table 5 and in the state estimates of total benefitsin Table 8.
A detailed, state by state explanation of how the ben-efit estimates in this report are produced, anddescription of special funds, second injury fund andguaranty funds are provided in Sources and Methods:A Companion to Workers’ Compensation: Benefits,Coverage, and Costs, 2012 on the Academy’s website(www.nasi.org).
National Estimates of Benefits Paid Benefits by type of insurer. Table 5 shows benefits paidby type of insurer (private insurers, state funds, federal programs, and self-insured employers) since1962. Private insurance carriers have been the singlelargest payer of workers’ compensation benefitsthroughout the 50 year period. In 2012, private carriers accounted for slightly more than half(54.0%) of all benefits paid.
Self-insured employers were the second largest payerof workers’ compensation benefits, accounting forapproximately one fourth (23.9%) of all benefits
17 A.M. Best does not provide data on the four exclusive state funds (Ohio, North Dakota, Washington, and Wyoming), or the statefund in South Carolina that only provides benefits to government workers.
Private insurance carriers are thelargest single payer of workers’
compensation benefits, accountingfor 54% of benefits paid in 2012.
12 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 3
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Cov
ered
Wor
kers, B
y State, 200
8-20
12(in th
ousand
s)
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
Ran
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
1,80
81,
702
1,67
91,
680
1,69
7-7
.11.
1-6
.148
Alask
a29
829
729
930
531
10.
24.
04.
23
Arizo
na2,
529
2,34
02,
295
2,32
62,
374
-9.2
3.4
-6.1
49
Ark
ansa
s1,
117
1,07
81,
075
1,08
31,
092
-3.8
1.6
-2.2
21
Califo
rnia
15,2
4814
,377
14,1
7114
,310
14,6
74-7
.13.
6-3
.835
Col
orad
o2,
247
2,13
72,
110
2,14
72,
200
-6.1
4.3
-2.1
19
Con
nect
icut
1,66
81,
596
1,57
61,
594
1,61
1-5
.52.
2-3
.530
Delaw
are
416
395
392
396
398
-5.8
1.7
-4.2
39
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
491
482
483
494
506
-1.8
4.9
3.0
4
Flor
ida
7,17
76,
689
6,61
26,
688
6,83
2-7
.93.
3-4
.844
Geo
rgia
3,83
13,
592
3,54
33,
584
3,63
7-7
.52.
6-5
.145
Haw
aii
587
559
551
558
569
-6.2
3.3
-3.2
28
Idah
o64
060
059
259
560
2-7
.51.
8-5
.947
Illin
ois
5,74
15,
452
5,39
75,
467
5,53
7-6
.02.
6-3
.631
Indi
ana
2,82
32,
655
2,65
52,
705
2,76
2-6
.04.
0-2
.220
Iow
a1,
460
1,41
51,
402
1,41
91,
443
-4.0
2.9
-1.2
12
Kan
sas
1,34
21,
283
1,26
11,
268
1,28
5-6
.01.
9-4
.241
Ken
tuck
y1,
748
1,66
71,
665
1,68
91,
718
-4.8
3.2
-1.8
16
Loui
siana
1,85
31,
813
1,79
61,
811
1,83
3-3
.12.
1-1
.111
Mai
ne58
556
455
956
256
5-4
.41.
1-3
.429
Mar
ylan
d2,
407
2,32
62,
310
2,33
02,
363
-4.0
2.3
-1.8
17
Mas
sach
uset
ts3,
197
3,08
73,
098
3,13
63,
190
-3.1
3.0
-0.2
7
Michi
gan
3,90
43,
608
3,59
63,
678
3,76
4-7
.94.
7-3
.632
Min
neso
ta2,
631
2,52
12,
506
2,55
32,
597
-4.8
3.6
-1.3
13
Miss
issip
pi1,
053
1,00
499
699
81,
008
-5.4
1.1
-4.3
43
Miss
ouri
2,54
12,
435
2,40
02,
409
2,43
5-5
.51.
4-4
.240
Mon
tana
424
407
405
406
414
-4.6
2.2
-2.4
23
Neb
rask
a89
887
687
087
489
2-3
.12.
6-0
.610
Nev
ada
1,23
41,
118
1,08
81,
095
1,11
2-1
1.8
2.2
-9.9
51
New
Ham
pshi
re62
159
759
359
860
5-4
.62.
1-2
.624
New
Jersey
3,87
53,
712
3,68
03,
687
3,72
5-5
.01.
2-3
.936
New
Mex
ico
766
734
720
721
725
-6.0
0.7
-5.4
46
New
Yor
k8,
462
8,19
88,
195
8,30
88,
428
-3.2
2.8
-0.4
8
Nor
th C
arol
ina
3,86
63,
645
3,60
23,
652
3,72
2-6
.83.
3-3
.734
Nor
th D
akot
a33
833
734
536
639
92.
115
.417
.91
Ohi
o5,
159
4,86
64,
822
4,88
84,
967
-6.5
3.0
-3.7
33
Okl
ahom
a1,
499
1,37
91,
359
1,37
51,
404
-9.4
3.3
-6.3
50
Ore
gon
1,68
41,
578
1,56
71,
587
1,61
2-6
.92.
9-4
.342
Penn
sylv
ania
5,53
55,
344
5,34
35,
409
5,45
8-3
.52.
2-1
.414
Rho
de Is
land
459
438
436
437
441
-5.0
1.2
-3.9
38
Sout
h C
arol
ina
1,78
01,
670
1,65
71,
681
1,71
1-6
.93.
2-3
.937
Sout
h D
akot
a38
337
437
437
838
5-2
.43.
00.
65
Tenn
esse
e2,
575
2,42
22,
410
2,45
42,
503
-6.4
3.9
-2.8
25
Texa
s7,
651
7,81
88,
234
8,33
48,
477
7.6
3.0
10.8
2
Uta
h1,
182
1,11
81,
109
1,13
71,
177
-6.1
6.1
-0.4
9
Ver
mon
t29
428
428
428
729
0-3
.72.
3-1
.515
Virgi
nia
3,41
83,
290
3,27
33,
316
3,35
5-4
.22.
5-1
.918
Was
hing
ton
2,81
72,
697
2,66
72,
707
2,75
1-5
.33.
2-2
.322
Wes
t Virgi
nia
669
650
638
660
670
-4.6
5.0
0.2
6
Wisc
onsin
2,66
82,
539
2,52
32,
557
2,58
7-5
.42.
5-3
.027
Wyo
min
g27
926
726
326
727
1-5
.83.
0-2
.926
Tota
l non
-fed
eral
127,
881
122,
029
121,
474
122,
969
125,
083
-5.0
3.0
-2.2
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
s2,
762
2,82
72,
981
2,86
42,
820
7.9
-5.4
2.1
TO
TA
L13
0,64
312
4,85
612
4,45
412
5,83
312
7,90
4-4
.72.
8-2
.1
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
. See
App
endi
x A.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 13
Table 3
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Cov
ered
Wor
kers, B
y State, 200
8-20
12(in th
ousand
s)
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
Ran
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
1,80
81,
702
1,67
91,
680
1,69
7-7
.11.
1-6
.148
Alask
a29
829
729
930
531
10.
24.
04.
23
Arizo
na2,
529
2,34
02,
295
2,32
62,
374
-9.2
3.4
-6.1
49
Ark
ansa
s1,
117
1,07
81,
075
1,08
31,
092
-3.8
1.6
-2.2
21
Califo
rnia
15,2
4814
,377
14,1
7114
,310
14,6
74-7
.13.
6-3
.835
Col
orad
o2,
247
2,13
72,
110
2,14
72,
200
-6.1
4.3
-2.1
19
Con
nect
icut
1,66
81,
596
1,57
61,
594
1,61
1-5
.52.
2-3
.530
Delaw
are
416
395
392
396
398
-5.8
1.7
-4.2
39
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
491
482
483
494
506
-1.8
4.9
3.0
4
Flor
ida
7,17
76,
689
6,61
26,
688
6,83
2-7
.93.
3-4
.844
Geo
rgia
3,83
13,
592
3,54
33,
584
3,63
7-7
.52.
6-5
.145
Haw
aii
587
559
551
558
569
-6.2
3.3
-3.2
28
Idah
o64
060
059
259
560
2-7
.51.
8-5
.947
Illin
ois
5,74
15,
452
5,39
75,
467
5,53
7-6
.02.
6-3
.631
Indi
ana
2,82
32,
655
2,65
52,
705
2,76
2-6
.04.
0-2
.220
Iow
a1,
460
1,41
51,
402
1,41
91,
443
-4.0
2.9
-1.2
12
Kan
sas
1,34
21,
283
1,26
11,
268
1,28
5-6
.01.
9-4
.241
Ken
tuck
y1,
748
1,66
71,
665
1,68
91,
718
-4.8
3.2
-1.8
16
Loui
siana
1,85
31,
813
1,79
61,
811
1,83
3-3
.12.
1-1
.111
Mai
ne58
556
455
956
256
5-4
.41.
1-3
.429
Mar
ylan
d2,
407
2,32
62,
310
2,33
02,
363
-4.0
2.3
-1.8
17
Mas
sach
uset
ts3,
197
3,08
73,
098
3,13
63,
190
-3.1
3.0
-0.2
7
Michi
gan
3,90
43,
608
3,59
63,
678
3,76
4-7
.94.
7-3
.632
Min
neso
ta2,
631
2,52
12,
506
2,55
32,
597
-4.8
3.6
-1.3
13
Miss
issip
pi1,
053
1,00
499
699
81,
008
-5.4
1.1
-4.3
43
Miss
ouri
2,54
12,
435
2,40
02,
409
2,43
5-5
.51.
4-4
.240
Mon
tana
424
407
405
406
414
-4.6
2.2
-2.4
23
Neb
rask
a89
887
687
087
489
2-3
.12.
6-0
.610
Nev
ada
1,23
41,
118
1,08
81,
095
1,11
2-1
1.8
2.2
-9.9
51
New
Ham
pshi
re62
159
759
359
860
5-4
.62.
1-2
.624
New
Jersey
3,87
53,
712
3,68
03,
687
3,72
5-5
.01.
2-3
.936
New
Mex
ico
766
734
720
721
725
-6.0
0.7
-5.4
46
New
Yor
k8,
462
8,19
88,
195
8,30
88,
428
-3.2
2.8
-0.4
8
Nor
th C
arol
ina
3,86
63,
645
3,60
23,
652
3,72
2-6
.83.
3-3
.734
Nor
th D
akot
a33
833
734
536
639
92.
115
.417
.91
Ohi
o5,
159
4,86
64,
822
4,88
84,
967
-6.5
3.0
-3.7
33
Okl
ahom
a1,
499
1,37
91,
359
1,37
51,
404
-9.4
3.3
-6.3
50
Ore
gon
1,68
41,
578
1,56
71,
587
1,61
2-6
.92.
9-4
.342
Penn
sylv
ania
5,53
55,
344
5,34
35,
409
5,45
8-3
.52.
2-1
.414
Rho
de Is
land
459
438
436
437
441
-5.0
1.2
-3.9
38
Sout
h C
arol
ina
1,78
01,
670
1,65
71,
681
1,71
1-6
.93.
2-3
.937
Sout
h D
akot
a38
337
437
437
838
5-2
.43.
00.
65
Tenn
esse
e2,
575
2,42
22,
410
2,45
42,
503
-6.4
3.9
-2.8
25
Texa
s7,
651
7,81
88,
234
8,33
48,
477
7.6
3.0
10.8
2
Uta
h1,
182
1,11
81,
109
1,13
71,
177
-6.1
6.1
-0.4
9
Ver
mon
t29
428
428
428
729
0-3
.72.
3-1
.515
Virgi
nia
3,41
83,
290
3,27
33,
316
3,35
5-4
.22.
5-1
.918
Was
hing
ton
2,81
72,
697
2,66
72,
707
2,75
1-5
.33.
2-2
.322
Wes
t Virgi
nia
669
650
638
660
670
-4.6
5.0
0.2
6
Wisc
onsin
2,66
82,
539
2,52
32,
557
2,58
7-5
.42.
5-3
.027
Wyo
min
g27
926
726
326
727
1-5
.83.
0-2
.926
Tota
l non
-fed
eral
127,
881
122,
029
121,
474
122,
969
125,
083
-5.0
3.0
-2.2
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
s2,
762
2,82
72,
981
2,86
42,
820
7.9
-5.4
2.1
TO
TA
L13
0,64
312
4,85
612
4,45
412
5,83
312
7,90
4-4
.72.
8-2
.1
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
. See
App
endi
x A.
14 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 4
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Cov
ered
Wag
es, B
y State, 200
8-20
12
(in millions
)
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
Ran
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$ 68
,530
$ 65
,522
$ 65
,951
$ 67
,349
$ 69
,494
-3.8
5.4
1.4
45
Alask
a13
,344
13,6
6414
,062
14,6
7715
,367
5.4
9.3
15.2
3
Arizo
na10
6,47
799
,095
98,2
8810
2,16
210
6,98
6-7
.78.
90.
549
Ark
ansa
s38
,472
37,9
3238
,156
39,8
8941
,240
-0.8
8.1
7.2
13
Califo
rnia
781,
948
737,
852
749,
264
783,
390
831,
610
-4.2
11.0
6.4
17
Col
orad
o10
3,68
799
,015
99,8
0410
4,12
411
0,07
3-3
.710
.36.
221
Con
nect
icut
97,3
2292
,085
93,6
1697
,281
99,9
35-3
.86.
72.
740
Delaw
are
19,7
2018
,811
19,0
2319
,913
20,5
53-3
.58.
04.
231
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
34,8
2234
,195
35,2
1436
,805
38,5
421.
19.
410
.76
Flor
ida
288,
339
271,
057
271,
812
279,
786
291,
892
-5.7
7.4
1.2
48
Geo
rgia
161,
107
151,
782
153,
215
159,
127
166,
046
-4.9
8.4
3.1
37
Haw
aii
23,2
1322
,355
22,1
3022
,753
23,7
60-4
.77.
42.
442
Idah
o21
,398
20,1
7320
,335
20,8
6821
,463
-5.0
5.5
0.3
50
Illin
ois
278,
314
262,
097
265,
517
276,
331
287,
520
-4.6
8.3
3.3
36
Indi
ana
107,
620
100,
758
103,
299
107,
900
113,
017
-4.0
9.4
5.0
24
Iow
a53
,625
52,2
1753
,097
55,3
0657
,861
-1.0
9.0
7.9
10
Kan
sas
50,7
7548
,760
48,5
5250
,106
52,2
68-4
.47.
72.
938
Ken
tuck
y64
,742
62,5
8563
,736
66,0
9768
,692
-1.6
7.8
6.1
22
Loui
siana
74,1
3172
,822
73,6
4376
,078
78,7
16-0
.76.
96.
220
Mai
ne20
,854
20,2
7020
,502
20,9
5921
,426
-1.7
4.5
2.7
39
Mar
ylan
d11
4,89
511
2,86
511
4,29
111
7,73
512
2,14
8-0
.56.
96.
318
Mas
sach
uset
ts18
0,86
717
2,99
517
8,23
318
6,32
619
3,73
3-1
.58.
77.
114
Michi
gan
171,
902
156,
539
158,
816
167,
420
174,
717
-7.6
10.0
1.6
44
Min
neso
ta12
0,03
811
3,65
811
6,78
712
1,67
412
7,56
0-2
.79.
26.
319
Miss
issip
pi34
,653
33,3
0933
,545
34,2
5435
,487
-3.2
5.8
2.4
41
Miss
ouri
101,
623
96,4
1496
,499
98,7
1310
2,87
8-5
.06.
61.
247
Mon
tana
13,7
9213
,415
13,6
5814
,169
15,0
08-1
.09.
98.
88
Neb
rask
a32
,219
31,7
5532
,089
33,0
8534
,687
-0.4
8.1
7.7
11
Nev
ada
52,6
8847
,442
45,8
8346
,824
48,1
60-1
2.9
5.0
-8.6
51
New
Ham
pshi
re27
,714
26,6
5927
,065
28,1
0629
,005
-2.3
7.2
4.7
25
New
Jersey
213,
418
203,
895
206,
476
211,
059
217,
495
-3.3
5.3
1.9
43
New
Mex
ico
28,2
8427
,486
27,4
4727
,952
28,6
48-3
.04.
41.
346
New
Yor
k50
9,95
447
2,64
649
2,98
351
2,32
352
7,11
1-3
.36.
93.
435
Nor
th C
arol
ina
152,
519
143,
984
146,
891
152,
474
159,
113
-3.7
8.3
4.3
30
Nor
th D
akot
a11
,686
11,9
5213
,004
15,1
5218
,187
11.3
39.9
55.6
1
Ohi
o20
8,57
319
7,12
519
9,44
720
7,77
521
7,77
3-4
.49.
24.
428
Okl
ahom
a54
,861
52,6
1750
,858
54,1
4657
,387
-7.3
12.8
4.6
27
Ore
gon
67,5
5963
,646
64,6
3967
,704
70,7
07-4
.39.
44.
726
Penn
sylv
ania
243,
716
237,
464
242,
270
252,
338
262,
207
-0.6
8.2
7.6
12
Rho
de Is
land
19,4
8018
,725
19,1
3919
,674
20,2
54-1
.75.
84.
034
Sout
h C
arol
ina
63,8
6260
,680
61,5
8463
,863
66,4
71-3
.67.
94.
132
Sout
h D
akot
a12
,331
12,2
4712
,575
13,1
3513
,820
2.0
9.9
12.1
4
Tenn
esse
e10
1,91
096
,327
98,9
1710
2,79
210
8,73
0-2
.99.
96.
716
Texa
s34
9,13
233
6,40
238
3,23
540
2,83
542
5,76
09.
811
.121
.92
Uta
h44
,198
42,3
8942
,894
44,9
2847
,795
-3.0
11.4
8.1
9
Ver
mon
t11
,152
10,8
7011
,055
11,3
9111
,739
-0.9
6.2
5.3
23
Virgi
nia
156,
661
153,
518
156,
856
162,
056
167,
707
0.1
6.9
7.1
15
Was
hing
ton
130,
084
126,
855
128,
028
134,
609
141,
613
-1.6
10.6
8.9
7
Wes
t Virgi
nia
23,4
1823
,325
24,4
7025
,159
25,9
524.
56.
110
.85
Wisc
onsin
103,
920
98,8
5910
0,36
010
4,32
110
8,10
0-3
.47.
74.
033
Wyo
min
g11
,461
10,7
4610
,924
11,4
6511
,964
-4.7
9.5
4.4
29
Tota
l non
-fed
eral
$5,7
71,2
32$5
,483
,956
$5,6
13,0
49$5
,839
,457
$6,1
02,4
55-2
.78.
75.
7
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
s18
3,09
519
1,51
020
7,16
220
9,05
920
6,82
313
.1-0
.213
.0
TO
TA
L$5
,954
,327
$5,6
75,4
66$5
,820
,211
$6,0
48,5
16$6
,309
,278
-2.3
8.4
6.0
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
. See
App
endi
x A.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 15
Table 4
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Cov
ered
Wag
es, B
y State, 200
8-20
12
(in millions
)
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
Ran
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$ 68
,530
$ 65
,522
$ 65
,951
$ 67
,349
$ 69
,494
-3.8
5.4
1.4
45
Alask
a13
,344
13,6
6414
,062
14,6
7715
,367
5.4
9.3
15.2
3
Arizo
na10
6,47
799
,095
98,2
8810
2,16
210
6,98
6-7
.78.
90.
549
Ark
ansa
s38
,472
37,9
3238
,156
39,8
8941
,240
-0.8
8.1
7.2
13
Califo
rnia
781,
948
737,
852
749,
264
783,
390
831,
610
-4.2
11.0
6.4
17
Col
orad
o10
3,68
799
,015
99,8
0410
4,12
411
0,07
3-3
.710
.36.
221
Con
nect
icut
97,3
2292
,085
93,6
1697
,281
99,9
35-3
.86.
72.
740
Delaw
are
19,7
2018
,811
19,0
2319
,913
20,5
53-3
.58.
04.
231
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
34,8
2234
,195
35,2
1436
,805
38,5
421.
19.
410
.76
Flor
ida
288,
339
271,
057
271,
812
279,
786
291,
892
-5.7
7.4
1.2
48
Geo
rgia
161,
107
151,
782
153,
215
159,
127
166,
046
-4.9
8.4
3.1
37
Haw
aii
23,2
1322
,355
22,1
3022
,753
23,7
60-4
.77.
42.
442
Idah
o21
,398
20,1
7320
,335
20,8
6821
,463
-5.0
5.5
0.3
50
Illin
ois
278,
314
262,
097
265,
517
276,
331
287,
520
-4.6
8.3
3.3
36
Indi
ana
107,
620
100,
758
103,
299
107,
900
113,
017
-4.0
9.4
5.0
24
Iow
a53
,625
52,2
1753
,097
55,3
0657
,861
-1.0
9.0
7.9
10
Kan
sas
50,7
7548
,760
48,5
5250
,106
52,2
68-4
.47.
72.
938
Ken
tuck
y64
,742
62,5
8563
,736
66,0
9768
,692
-1.6
7.8
6.1
22
Loui
siana
74,1
3172
,822
73,6
4376
,078
78,7
16-0
.76.
96.
220
Mai
ne20
,854
20,2
7020
,502
20,9
5921
,426
-1.7
4.5
2.7
39
Mar
ylan
d11
4,89
511
2,86
511
4,29
111
7,73
512
2,14
8-0
.56.
96.
318
Mas
sach
uset
ts18
0,86
717
2,99
517
8,23
318
6,32
619
3,73
3-1
.58.
77.
114
Michi
gan
171,
902
156,
539
158,
816
167,
420
174,
717
-7.6
10.0
1.6
44
Min
neso
ta12
0,03
811
3,65
811
6,78
712
1,67
412
7,56
0-2
.79.
26.
319
Miss
issip
pi34
,653
33,3
0933
,545
34,2
5435
,487
-3.2
5.8
2.4
41
Miss
ouri
101,
623
96,4
1496
,499
98,7
1310
2,87
8-5
.06.
61.
247
Mon
tana
13,7
9213
,415
13,6
5814
,169
15,0
08-1
.09.
98.
88
Neb
rask
a32
,219
31,7
5532
,089
33,0
8534
,687
-0.4
8.1
7.7
11
Nev
ada
52,6
8847
,442
45,8
8346
,824
48,1
60-1
2.9
5.0
-8.6
51
New
Ham
pshi
re27
,714
26,6
5927
,065
28,1
0629
,005
-2.3
7.2
4.7
25
New
Jersey
213,
418
203,
895
206,
476
211,
059
217,
495
-3.3
5.3
1.9
43
New
Mex
ico
28,2
8427
,486
27,4
4727
,952
28,6
48-3
.04.
41.
346
New
Yor
k50
9,95
447
2,64
649
2,98
351
2,32
352
7,11
1-3
.36.
93.
435
Nor
th C
arol
ina
152,
519
143,
984
146,
891
152,
474
159,
113
-3.7
8.3
4.3
30
Nor
th D
akot
a11
,686
11,9
5213
,004
15,1
5218
,187
11.3
39.9
55.6
1
Ohi
o20
8,57
319
7,12
519
9,44
720
7,77
521
7,77
3-4
.49.
24.
428
Okl
ahom
a54
,861
52,6
1750
,858
54,1
4657
,387
-7.3
12.8
4.6
27
Ore
gon
67,5
5963
,646
64,6
3967
,704
70,7
07-4
.39.
44.
726
Penn
sylv
ania
243,
716
237,
464
242,
270
252,
338
262,
207
-0.6
8.2
7.6
12
Rho
de Is
land
19,4
8018
,725
19,1
3919
,674
20,2
54-1
.75.
84.
034
Sout
h C
arol
ina
63,8
6260
,680
61,5
8463
,863
66,4
71-3
.67.
94.
132
Sout
h D
akot
a12
,331
12,2
4712
,575
13,1
3513
,820
2.0
9.9
12.1
4
Tenn
esse
e10
1,91
096
,327
98,9
1710
2,79
210
8,73
0-2
.99.
96.
716
Texa
s34
9,13
233
6,40
238
3,23
540
2,83
542
5,76
09.
811
.121
.92
Uta
h44
,198
42,3
8942
,894
44,9
2847
,795
-3.0
11.4
8.1
9
Ver
mon
t11
,152
10,8
7011
,055
11,3
9111
,739
-0.9
6.2
5.3
23
Virgi
nia
156,
661
153,
518
156,
856
162,
056
167,
707
0.1
6.9
7.1
15
Was
hing
ton
130,
084
126,
855
128,
028
134,
609
141,
613
-1.6
10.6
8.9
7
Wes
t Virgi
nia
23,4
1823
,325
24,4
7025
,159
25,9
524.
56.
110
.85
Wisc
onsin
103,
920
98,8
5910
0,36
010
4,32
110
8,10
0-3
.47.
74.
033
Wyo
min
g11
,461
10,7
4610
,924
11,4
6511
,964
-4.7
9.5
4.4
29
Tota
l non
-fed
eral
$5,7
71,2
32$5
,483
,956
$5,6
13,0
49$5
,839
,457
$6,1
02,4
55-2
.78.
75.
7
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
s18
3,09
519
1,51
020
7,16
220
9,05
920
6,82
313
.1-0
.213
.0
TO
TA
L$5
,954
,327
$5,6
75,4
66$5
,820
,211
$6,0
48,5
16$6
,309
,278
-2.3
8.4
6.0
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
. See
App
endi
x A.
16 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 5Workers’ Compensation Benefits by Type of Insurer and Share of Medical Benefits, 1962–2012
Private Carriers State Funds Federal Self-Insured All InsurersTotal % Change Total
Total % Total % Total % Total % Benefits from Prior Medical %Year (million) Share (million) Share (million) Share (million) Share (million) Year (million) Medical1962 $924 62.1 $305 20.5 $66 4.4 $194 13.0 $1,489 8.4 $495 33.21963 988 62.4 318 20.1 70 4.4 207 13.1 1,583 6.3 525 33.21964 1,070 62.6 339 19.8 73 4.3 226 13.2 1,708 7.9 565 33.11965 1,124 62.0 371 20.5 74 4.1 244 13.5 1,813 6.1 600 33.11966 1,239 62.0 404 20.2 82 4.1 275 13.8 2,000 10.3 680 34.01967 1,363 62.2 430 19.6 94 4.3 303 13.8 2,190 9.5 750 34.21968 1,482 62.4 451 19.0 105 4.4 338 14.2 2,376 8.5 830 34.91969 1,641 62.3 486 18.5 121 4.6 386 14.7 2,634 10.9 920 34.91970 1,843 60.8 497 16.4 258 8.5 432 14.3 3,030 15.0 1,050 34.71971 2,005 56.3 549 15.4 549 15.4 460 12.9 3,563 17.6 1,130 31.71972 2,179 53.6 633 15.6 746 18.4 504 12.4 4,062 14.0 1,250 30.81973 2,514 49.3 720 14.1 1,278 25.0 592 11.6 5,104 25.7 1,480 29.01974 2,971 51.4 823 14.2 1,263 21.8 724 12.5 5,781 13.3 1,760 30.41975 3,422 51.9 957 14.5 1,367 20.7 852 12.9 6,598 14.1 2,030 30.81976 3,976 52.4 1,088 14.3 1,482 19.5 1,039 13.7 7,585 15.0 2,380 31.41977 4,629 53.6 1,209 14.0 1,541 17.9 1,250 14.5 8,629 13.8 2,680 31.11978 5,256 53.7 1,221 12.5 1,822 18.6 1,497 15.3 9,796 13.5 2,980 30.41979 6,157 51.2 1,709 14.2 2,313 19.2 1,848 15.4 12,027 22.8 3,520 29.31980 7,029 51.6 1,797 13.2 2,533 18.6 2,259 16.6 13,618 13.2 3,947 29.01981 7,876 52.3 2,017 13.4 2,578 17.1 2,583 17.2 15,054 10.5 4,431 29.41982 8,647 52.7 2,191 13.4 2,577 15.7 2,993 18.2 16,408 9.0 5,058 30.81983 9,265 52.7 2,443 13.9 2,618 14.9 3,249 18.5 17,575 7.1 5,681 32.31984 10,610 53.9 2,754 14.0 2,651 13.5 3,671 18.6 19,686 12.0 6,424 32.61985 12,341 55.5 3,059 13.8 2,685 12.1 4,132 18.6 22,217 12.9 7,498 33.71986 13,827 56.2 3,554 14.4 2,694 10.9 4,538 18.4 24,613 10.8 8,642 35.11987 15,453 56.6 4,084 15.0 2,698 9.9 5,082 18.6 27,317 11.0 9,912 36.31988 17,512 57.0 4,687 15.3 2,760 9.0 5,744 18.7 30,703 12.4 11,507 37.51989 19,918 58.0 5,205 15.2 2,760 8.0 6,433 18.7 34,316 11.8 13,424 39.11990 22,222 58.1 5,873 15.4 2,893 7.6 7,249 19.0 38,237 11.4 15,187 39.71991 24,515 58.1 6,713 15.9 2,998 7.1 7,962 18.9 42,187 10.3 16,832 39.91992 24,030 53.8 7,829 17.5 3,158 7.1 9,643 21.6 44,660 5.9 18,664 41.81993 21,773 50.7 8,105 18.9 3,189 7.4 9,857 23.0 42,925 -3.9 18,503 43.11994 21,391 49.2 7,398 17.0 3,166 7.3 11,527 26.5 43,482 1.3 17,194 39.51995 20,106 47.7 7,681 18.2 3,103 7.4 11,232 26.7 42,122 -3.1 16,733 39.71996 21,024 50.1 8,042 19.2 3,066 7.3 9,828 23.4 41,960 -0.4 16,739 39.91997 21,676 51.6 7,157 17.1 2,780 6.6 10,357 24.7 41,971 0.0 17,397 41.51998 23,579 53.6 7,187 16.3 2,868 6.5 10,354 23.5 43,987 4.8 18,622 42.31999 26,383 57.0 7,083 15.3 2,862 6.2 9,985 21.6 46,313 5.3 20,055 43.32000 26,874 56.3 7,388 15.5 2,957 6.2 10,481 22.0 47,699 3.0 20,933 43.92001 27,905 54.9 8,013 15.8 3,069 6.0 11,839 23.3 50,827 6.6 23,137 45.52002 28,085 53.7 9,139 17.5 3,154 6.0 11,920 22.8 52,297 2.9 24,203 46.32003 28,395 51.9 10,442 19.1 3,185 5.8 12,717 23.2 54,739 4.7 25,733 47.02004 28,632 51.0 11,146 19.9 3,256 5.8 13,115 23.4 56,149 2.6 26,079 46.42005 29,039 50.9 11,060 19.4 3,258 5.7 13,710 24.0 57,067 1.6 26,361 46.22006 27,946 50.9 10,555 19.2 3,270 6.0 13,125 23.9 54,896 -3.8 26,206 47.72007 29,410 52.2 10,153 18.0 3,340 5.9 13,482 23.9 56,385 2.7 27,105 48.12008 30,725 52.3 10,347 17.6 3,424 5.8 14,255 24.3 58,750 4.2 28,987 49.32009 30,909 52.9 9,997 17.1 3,543 6.1 13,987 23.9 58,435 -0.5 28,157 48.22010 31,090 53.2 9,809 16.8 3,672 6.3 13,894 23.8 58,465 0.1 28,715 49.12011 32,734 53.6 9,857 16.1 3,777 6.2 14,673 24.0 61,041 4.4 30,557 50.12012 33,429 54.0 9,887 16.0 3,776 6.1 14,765 23.9 61,857 1.3 30,838 49.9
Notes: Benefits are payments in the calendar year to injured workers and to providers of their medical care. Beginning in 1992 benefits paid by employersunder deductible provisions are included.
paid in 2012. The share of benefits paid by self-insured employers has been relatively stable since1996.
State funds and the federal government accountedfor the remaining one-fourth of benefits paid in2012. State funds accounted for 16.0 percent ofworkers’ compensation benefits paid, a decrease of0.1 percentage points from 2011. The decrease wasdriven by a drop in the share of benefits paid by statefunds in eight states (Arizona, California, Colorado,New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,and Utah). In the other 15 states with state funds,the share of benefits paid by the fund eitherincreased or remained constant. Federal fundsaccounted for 6.1 percent of all workers compensa-tion payments in 2012, a drop of 0.1 percentagepoints from 2011. The proportion of workers’ com-pensation benefits paid by federal funds hasremained stable at 6 to7 percent for the last 20years.18
Deductibles. Table 6 shows the estimated dollaramount of benefits employers paid under deductibleprovisions with private carriers or state funds since1992. In 2012, employer payments underdeductibles totaled $9.4 billion, or 15.2 percent oftotal benefits paid. Deductibles as a share of totalbenefits have remained fairly constant (13-15%)since 2000.
Employers who have policies with deductibles are, ineffect, self-insured up to the amount of thedeductible. Adding benefits paid under deductiblesto benefits paid by self-insured employers shows theshare of the total workers’ compensation market forwhich employers are assuming primary financial risk.In 2012, 39.1 percent of benefits were directly paidby employers (Table 7, column 9). Over the last twodecades, employers’ share of workers’ compensationbenefit payments has increased from about 25 per-cent to almost 40 percent. The increase has beenaccompanied by decreases in the share of payments,net of deductibles, made by private carriers (from51% to 39.6%) and state funds (from 17.5% to15.2%). (Refer to columns 3 and 6 of Table 7.)
Estimates of Benefits Paid by StateBenefits by Type of Insurer. Table 8 shows the shares ofworkers’ compensation benefits paid by each type ofinsurer in each state in 2012. The shares vary consid-erably across states because of differences in the legalstatus of state funds (exclusive, competitive, other, ornone). The share of benefits paid by private carriers,for example, ranges from more than 85 percent insome states with no state fund (District ofColumbia, Indiana, South Dakota, Vermont andWisconsin) to less than one percent in the four stateswith exclusive state funds (North Dakota, Ohio,Washington, Wyoming).19
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 17
Table 5 continued
Federal benefits include benefits paid under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, and employer-financed benefits paidthrough the Federal Black Lung Disability Trust fund. In years before 1997, Federal benefits also include the part of the BlackLung program financed by Federal funds. In 1997–2012 federal benefits include a portion of employer-financed benefits underthe Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. See Appendix B for more information about federal programs. Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates, SSA 2012 and DOL 2014.
18 The spike in federal benefits in the 1970s is entirely accounted for by the black lung program. Prior to 1970 the federal data in-cluded only payments for federal civilian employees under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA). The federal programfor workers with black lung disease began paying benefits in 1970 and by 1973 nearly doubled its payments to approximately $1 bil-lion. The startup of this program was the sole explanation for the large increase in federal share of benefits in the early 1970s. Thefederal share has since declined as payments under the black lung program have diminished, due largely to the aging and death of theclaimant population, and the change to the responsible operator system that increased the level of defense on claims. Also, the pre-sumptions included in the 1970s legislation were largely eliminated by changes in 1981, leading to a very real drop in the number ofapproved claims.
19 The payment of workers’ compensation benefits by private carriers in states with exclusive state funds may be due to policies sold toemployers in those states providing multistate coverage and also because some exclusive state funds may be restricted to providingworkers’ compensation benefits for the state in which the exclusive state fund issues the policy and might not be permitted to offeremployers liability coverage, federal Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act coverage, or excess coverage for authorizedself-insurers.
In the states with exclusive state funds the share ofbenefit payments accounted for by the state fundvaries from more than 99 percent in North Dakotaand Wyoming (states that do not allow self-insur-ance) to approximately 80 percent in Ohio andWashington (states that allow qualifying employersto self-insure). In the 18 states with competitive statefunds in 2012, the percentage of benefits accountedfor by the state fund varies from a high of 58 percentin Idaho to less than 10 percent in New Mexico,Pennsylvania, and South Carolina.
In states that allow employers to self-insure the shareof workers’ compensation benefits paid by self-insuredemployers varies widely. In 2012, the share accountedfor self-insurance ranges from a high of 51.1 percentin Alabama to a low of 3.6 percent in Idaho.
There are several possible explanations for thetremendous variation in take-up rates for self-insur-ance across states: 1) Large employers are more likelyto self-insure, and some states (e.g. Michigan) have agreater proportion of large employers than other
18 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 6Workers' Compensation Employer Paid Benefits under Deductible Provisions, 1992–2012
Deductibles (in millions) Deductibles as a % ofYear Total Private Carriers State Funds Total Benefits
1992 $1,250 $1,250 * 2.8
1993 2,027 2,008 $ 19 4.7
1994 2,834 2,645 189 6.5
1995 3,384 3,060 324 8.0
1996 3,716 3,470 246 8.9
1997 3,994 3,760 234 9.5
1998 4,644 4,399 245 10.6
1999 5,684 5,452 232 12.3
2000 6,201 5,931 270 13.0
2001 6,388 6,085 303 12.6
2002 6,922 6,511 411 13.2
2003 8,020 7,547 474 14.7
2004 7,645 7,134 510 13.6
2005 7,798 7,290 508 13.7
2006 7,575 7,052 524 13.8
2007 8,217 7,684 533 14.6
2008 8,603 8,095 508 14.6
2009 8,624 8,150 474 14.8
2010 8,924 8,481 443 15.3
2011 8,848 8,419 429 14.5
2012 9,407 8,953 455 15.2
* NegligibleNotes: Benefits paid under deductible provisions were either provided directly or could be calculated from data provided by 18states. Four states do not allow workers' compensation policies with deductibles. For the other 29 states and the District of Columbia, deductible benefits were imputed using a ratio of the manual equivalent premiums.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 19
states. 2) Financial incentives to self-insure varyacross states because of differences in state workers’compensation statutes. Some states, for example, do
not collect special fund assessments from self-insuredemployers, thereby increasing the incentive to self-insure. 3) The self-insured market share is also
Table 7Percentage Distribution of Workers' Compensation Benefit Payments by Type of Insurer: With and Without Deductibles, 1992–2012
Percent of Total Benefits
Private Carriers State FundsTotal Employer Insurer- Employer Insurer-
Benefits Paid Paid after Paid Paid after Self- TotalYear (millions) Total Deductibles Deductibles Total Deductibles Deductibles Federal Insured Employer Paid
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)= (2) + (5) + (8)
1992 $44,660 53.8 2.8 51.0 17.5 * 17.5 7.1 21.6 24.4
1993 42,925 50.7 4.7 46.0 18.9 * 18.9 7.4 23.0 27.6
1994 43,482 49.2 6.1 43.1 17.0 0.4 16.6 7.3 26.5 33.0
1995 42,122 47.7 7.3 40.5 18.2 0.8 17.5 7.4 26.7 34.7
1996 41,960 50.1 8.3 41.8 19.2 0.6 18.6 7.3 23.4 32.3
1997 41,971 51.6 9.0 42.7 17.1 0.6 16.5 6.6 24.7 34.2
1998 43,987 53.6 10.0 43.6 16.3 0.6 15.8 6.5 23.5 34.1
1999 46,313 57.0 11.8 45.2 15.3 0.5 14.8 6.2 21.6 33.8
2000 47,699 56.3 12.4 43.9 15.5 0.6 14.9 6.2 22.0 35.0
2001 50,827 54.9 12.0 42.9 15.8 0.6 15.2 6.0 23.3 35.9
2002 52,297 53.7 12.4 41.3 17.5 0.8 16.7 6.0 22.8 36.0
2003 54,739 51.9 13.8 38.1 19.1 0.9 18.2 5.8 23.2 37.9
2004 56,149 51.0 12.7 38.3 19.9 0.9 18.9 5.8 23.4 37.0
2005 57,067 50.9 12.8 38.1 19.4 0.9 18.5 5.7 24.0 37.7
2006 54,896 50.9 12.8 38.1 19.2 1.0 18.3 6.0 23.9 37.7
2007 56,385 52.2 13.6 38.5 18.0 0.9 17.1 5.9 23.9 38.5
2008 58,750 52.3 13.8 38.5 17.6 0.9 16.7 5.8 24.3 38.9
2009 58,435 52.9 13.9 38.9 17.1 0.8 16.3 6.1 23.9 38.7
2010 58,465 53.2 14.5 38.7 16.8 0.8 16.0 6.3 23.8 39.0
2011 61,041 53.6 13.8 39.8 16.1 0.7 15.4 6.2 24.0 38.5
2012 61,857 54.0 14.5 39.6 16.0 0.7 15.2 6.1 23.9 39.1
* NegligibleNotes: Shaded columns sum to 100%. Total employer paid benefits include employer paid deductibles under private carriers and statefunds, as well as beneftis paid by self-insured employers.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates based on Tables 5 and 6.
20 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 8
Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsation Ben
efits by
Typ
e of Ins
urer and
Sha
re of M
edical B
enefits, by State, 201
2
Priv
ate C
arrier
sSt
ate Fu
nds
Self-
Insu
redb
Ran
king
of
from
larg
est
Ben
efits
Perc
ent
Ben
efits
Perc
ent
Ben
efits
Perc
ent
Tota
lM
edical
Perc
ent
to sm
allest
(tho
usan
ds)
Shar
e(tho
usan
ds)
Shar
e(tho
usan
ds)
Shar
e(tho
usan
ds)h
(tho
usan
ds)c
Med
ical
% m
edical
Alaba
ma
$317
,646
48.9
$332
,036
51.1
$649
,682
$438
,535
67.5
7
Alask
a17
6,19
671
.071
,842
29.0
248,
038
167,
921
67.7
6
Arizo
na36
7,36
751
.6$2
17,2
1830
.512
7,73
917
.971
2,32
446
7,99
765
.710
Ark
ansa
s16
3,83
776
.650
,134
23.4
213,
971
140,
365
65.6
11
Califo
rnia
6,60
2,54
257
.41,
535,
318
13.3
3,36
5,79
429
.311
,503
,654
6,63
7,55
657
.722
Col
orad
o25
1,98
329
.842
8,53
650
.716
4,61
819
.584
5,13
648
0,88
356
.924
Con
nect
icut
644,
541
72.6
242,
685
27.4
887,
226
411,
673
46.4
37
Delaw
are
177,
725
82.5
37,7
9317
.521
5,51
812
9,52
660
.118
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
85,0
5385
.913
,932
14.1
98,9
8434
,249
34.6
48
Flor
ida
1,95
2,92
768
.988
2,82
331
.12,
835,
750
1,87
7,26
766
.29
Geo
rgia
1,06
7,49
673
.538
4,31
526
.51,
451,
811
734,
616
50.6
32
Haw
aii
131,
783
53.0
30,8
2512
.485
,825
34.5
248,
433
108,
069
43.5
44
Idah
o91
,998
38.5
138,
146
57.9
8,57
83.
623
8,72
315
4,93
164
.912
Illin
ois
2,02
1,10
374
.868
1,36
925
.22,
702,
471
1,18
6,38
543
.942
Indi
ana
562,
404
90.2
61,3
389.
862
3,74
245
7,82
773
.41
Iow
a50
3,02
278
.313
9,12
521
.764
2,14
736
2,17
156
.426
Kan
sas
305,
543
72.0
118,
579
28.0
424,
122
248,
111
58.5
20
Ken
tuck
y36
3,38
755
.189
,496
13.6
206,
309
31.3
659,
192
366,
511
55.6
27
Loui
siana
475,
721
55.3
103,
533
12.0
281,
076
32.7
860,
330
453,
394
52.7
30
Mai
ne22
6,56
274
.079
,531
26.0
306,
093
142,
640
46.6
36
Mar
ylan
d53
1,85
854
.816
9,52
817
.526
9,34
827
.797
0,73
444
0,71
345
.440
Mas
sach
uset
ts73
6,86
675
.324
1,96
024
.797
8,82
534
7,49
635
.547
Michi
gan
738,
694
62.1
450,
789
37.9
1,18
9,48
342
2,45
535
.546
Min
neso
ta79
0,95
875
.825
2,73
624
.21,
043,
694
568,
959
54.5
29
Miss
issip
pi22
0,92
665
.711
5,28
334
.333
6,20
818
9,95
856
.525
Miss
ouri
536,
075
63.9
92,0
3511
.021
0,80
325
.183
8,91
348
0,69
757
.323
Mon
tana
84,9
4133
.912
5,49
850
.140
,104
16.0
250,
542
157,
341
62.8
13
Neb
rask
a24
7,21
979
.165
,229
20.9
312,
448
192,
155
61.5
15
Nev
ada
255,
778
68.4
118,
307
31.6
374,
085
183,
302
49.0
35
New
Ham
pshi
re16
8,19
073
.460
,835
26.6
229,
024
152,
072
66.4
8
New
Jersey
1,74
7,77
178
.946
7,68
121
.12,
215,
453
1,13
6,78
451
.331
New
Mex
ico
181,
093
59.1
28,2
279.
296
,984
31.7
306,
304
179,
188
58.5
20
New
Yor
k2,
355,
837
43.7
1,38
8,22
125
.71,
650,
452
30.6
5,39
4,50
91,
847,
811
34.3
49
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1,07
9,17
675
.734
6,42
024
.31,
425,
596
652,
923
45.8
39
Nor
th D
akot
aa89
80.
615
0,13
599
.415
1,03
390
,894
60.2
17
Ohi
oa17
,085
0.8
1,73
9,06
281
.637
3,91
617
.62,
130,
063
836,
197
39.3
45
Okl
ahom
a45
3,38
751
.924
3,38
327
.917
6,63
720
.287
3,40
738
5,17
344
.141
Ore
gon
225,
878
34.2
307,
125
46.5
127,
551
19.3
660,
553
363,
965
55.1
28
Penn
sylv
ania
2,07
6,76
171
.419
4,79
56.
763
8,70
721
.92,
910,
262
1,34
7,67
646
.338
Rho
de Is
land
66,5
4737
.585
,933
48.4
25,1
8514
.217
7,66
456
,142
31.6
51
Sout
h C
arol
inae
631,
040
69.7
64,0
197.
121
0,34
723
.290
5,40
539
5,66
243
.743
Sout
h D
akot
a89
,349
95.7
4,05
64.
393
,404
64,3
5668
.94
Tenn
esse
e62
7,23
378
.117
5,87
021
.980
3,10
347
3,02
858
.919
Texa
s95
7,32
655
.642
2,43
224
.534
2,48
319
.91,
722,
241
1,05
9,17
861
.514
Uta
h11
2,52
038
.512
7,03
143
.453
,068
18.1
292,
619
206,
297
70.5
2
Ver
mon
t12
7,38
087
.019
,065
13.0
146,
445
73,2
2350
.034
Virgi
nia
712,
866
78.0
200,
889
22.0
913,
755
551,
908
60.4
16
Was
hing
tona
13,7
800.
61,
813,
835
78.5
484,
082
20.9
2,31
1,69
774
2,79
732
.150
Wes
t Virgi
niad
176,
309
37.5
230,
907
49.1
63,0
3513
.447
0,25
123
7,00
650
.433
Wisc
onsin
975,
985
86.8
147,
875
13.2
1,12
3,86
178
1,89
769
.63
Wyo
min
ga80
20.
516
1,50
299
.516
2,30
411
0,00
867
.85
Non
-fed
eral
tota
l$3
3,42
9,36
257
.6$9
,886
,742
17.0
$14,
765,
132
25.4
$58,
081,
235
$29,
727,
885
51.2
All
Fede
ralf
3,77
5,51
91,
110,
074
29.4
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
sg3,
006,
009
924,
622
30.8
TO
TA
L$6
1,85
6,75
4$3
0,83
7,95
949
.9
Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. B
enef
its p
aid
unde
r Sp
ecia
l Fun
ds, S
econ
d In
jury
Fun
ds and
Gua
rant
y Fu
nds a
re
pror
ated
acr
oss p
riva
te car
rier
s, stat
e fu
nds a
nd se
lf-in
sure
d be
nefit
s pay
men
ts.
a.St
ates
with
exc
lusiv
e fu
nds (
Ohi
o, N
orth
Dak
ota, W
ashi
ngto
n, and
Wyo
min
g) m
ay h
ave sm
all a
mou
nts o
f ben
efits
pai
d in
the pr
ivat
e ca
rrier ca
tego
ry. T
his r
esul
ts fr
om th
e fa
ct th
at so
me
empl
oyer
s doi
ng b
usin
ess i
n stat
es w
ith exc
lusiv
e stat
e fu
nds m
ay n
eed
to o
btai
n co
vera
ge fr
om p
riva
te car
rier
s und
er th
e U
SL &
HW
act
or em
ploy
ers l
iabi
lity
cove
rage
whi
ch th
e stat
e fu
ndis
not a
utho
rize
d to
pro
vide
. In
addi
tion,
priva
te car
rier
s may
pro
vide
exc
ess c
ompe
nsat
ion
cove
rage
in so
me of
thes
e stat
es.
b. S
elf-in
sura
nce in
clud
es in
divi
dual se
lf-in
sure
rs and
gro
up se
lf-in
sura
nce.
c. F
or fu
rthe
r de
tails
see Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
d.
Wes
t Virgi
nia co
mpl
eted
the tran
sitio
n from
mon
opol
istic st
ate fu
nd to
com
petit
ive in
sura
nce stat
us o
n Ju
ly 1
, 200
8.
e. S
outh
Car
olin
s's S
tate
Acc
iden
t Fun
d is
not a
com
petit
ive stat
e fu
nd.
f. Fe
dera
l ben
efits
includ
e: th
ose pa
id u
nder
the Fe
dera
l Em
ploy
ees’
Com
pens
atio
n Act
for civi
lian
empl
oyee
s; th
e po
rtio
n of
the Black
Lun
g be
nefit
pro
gram
that
is fi
nanc
ed b
y em
ploy
ers;
and
a po
rtio
n of
ben
efits
und
er th
e Lo
ngsh
ore an
d H
arbo
r Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsat
ion
Act
that
are
not
refle
cted
in st
ate da
ta, n
amely, b
enef
its p
aid
by se
lf-in
sure
d em
ploy
ers a
nd b
y sp
ecia
l fun
dsun
der th
e LH
WC
A.
See App
endi
x H
for m
ore in
form
atio
n ab
out f
eder
al p
rogr
ams.
g. In
clud
ed in
the Fe
dera
l ben
efits
tota
l.h.
The
se d
ata m
ay n
ot in
clud
e se
cond
inju
ry fu
nd fo
r all s
tate
s and
may
bean
und
erstat
emen
t of t
otal p
aym
ents d
ata.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocial I
nsur
ance
estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta re
ceiv
ed fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, the
U.S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Lab
or, A
.M. B
est,
and
the N
atio
nal C
ounc
il on
Com
pens
atio
n In
sura
nce.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 21
Table 8
Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsation Ben
efits by
Typ
e of Ins
urer and
Sha
re of M
edical B
enefits, by State, 201
2
Priv
ate C
arrier
sSt
ate Fu
nds
Self-
Insu
redb
Ran
king
of
from
larg
est
Ben
efits
Perc
ent
Ben
efits
Perc
ent
Ben
efits
Perc
ent
Tota
lM
edical
Perc
ent
to sm
allest
(tho
usan
ds)
Shar
e(tho
usan
ds)
Shar
e(tho
usan
ds)
Shar
e(tho
usan
ds)h
(tho
usan
ds)c
Med
ical
% m
edical
Alaba
ma
$317
,646
48.9
$332
,036
51.1
$649
,682
$438
,535
67.5
7
Alask
a17
6,19
671
.071
,842
29.0
248,
038
167,
921
67.7
6
Arizo
na36
7,36
751
.6$2
17,2
1830
.512
7,73
917
.971
2,32
446
7,99
765
.710
Ark
ansa
s16
3,83
776
.650
,134
23.4
213,
971
140,
365
65.6
11
Califo
rnia
6,60
2,54
257
.41,
535,
318
13.3
3,36
5,79
429
.311
,503
,654
6,63
7,55
657
.722
Col
orad
o25
1,98
329
.842
8,53
650
.716
4,61
819
.584
5,13
648
0,88
356
.924
Con
nect
icut
644,
541
72.6
242,
685
27.4
887,
226
411,
673
46.4
37
Delaw
are
177,
725
82.5
37,7
9317
.521
5,51
812
9,52
660
.118
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
85,0
5385
.913
,932
14.1
98,9
8434
,249
34.6
48
Flor
ida
1,95
2,92
768
.988
2,82
331
.12,
835,
750
1,87
7,26
766
.29
Geo
rgia
1,06
7,49
673
.538
4,31
526
.51,
451,
811
734,
616
50.6
32
Haw
aii
131,
783
53.0
30,8
2512
.485
,825
34.5
248,
433
108,
069
43.5
44
Idah
o91
,998
38.5
138,
146
57.9
8,57
83.
623
8,72
315
4,93
164
.912
Illin
ois
2,02
1,10
374
.868
1,36
925
.22,
702,
471
1,18
6,38
543
.942
Indi
ana
562,
404
90.2
61,3
389.
862
3,74
245
7,82
773
.41
Iow
a50
3,02
278
.313
9,12
521
.764
2,14
736
2,17
156
.426
Kan
sas
305,
543
72.0
118,
579
28.0
424,
122
248,
111
58.5
20
Ken
tuck
y36
3,38
755
.189
,496
13.6
206,
309
31.3
659,
192
366,
511
55.6
27
Loui
siana
475,
721
55.3
103,
533
12.0
281,
076
32.7
860,
330
453,
394
52.7
30
Mai
ne22
6,56
274
.079
,531
26.0
306,
093
142,
640
46.6
36
Mar
ylan
d53
1,85
854
.816
9,52
817
.526
9,34
827
.797
0,73
444
0,71
345
.440
Mas
sach
uset
ts73
6,86
675
.324
1,96
024
.797
8,82
534
7,49
635
.547
Michi
gan
738,
694
62.1
450,
789
37.9
1,18
9,48
342
2,45
535
.546
Min
neso
ta79
0,95
875
.825
2,73
624
.21,
043,
694
568,
959
54.5
29
Miss
issip
pi22
0,92
665
.711
5,28
334
.333
6,20
818
9,95
856
.525
Miss
ouri
536,
075
63.9
92,0
3511
.021
0,80
325
.183
8,91
348
0,69
757
.323
Mon
tana
84,9
4133
.912
5,49
850
.140
,104
16.0
250,
542
157,
341
62.8
13
Neb
rask
a24
7,21
979
.165
,229
20.9
312,
448
192,
155
61.5
15
Nev
ada
255,
778
68.4
118,
307
31.6
374,
085
183,
302
49.0
35
New
Ham
pshi
re16
8,19
073
.460
,835
26.6
229,
024
152,
072
66.4
8
New
Jersey
1,74
7,77
178
.946
7,68
121
.12,
215,
453
1,13
6,78
451
.331
New
Mex
ico
181,
093
59.1
28,2
279.
296
,984
31.7
306,
304
179,
188
58.5
20
New
Yor
k2,
355,
837
43.7
1,38
8,22
125
.71,
650,
452
30.6
5,39
4,50
91,
847,
811
34.3
49
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1,07
9,17
675
.734
6,42
024
.31,
425,
596
652,
923
45.8
39
Nor
th D
akot
aa89
80.
615
0,13
599
.415
1,03
390
,894
60.2
17
Ohi
oa17
,085
0.8
1,73
9,06
281
.637
3,91
617
.62,
130,
063
836,
197
39.3
45
Okl
ahom
a45
3,38
751
.924
3,38
327
.917
6,63
720
.287
3,40
738
5,17
344
.141
Ore
gon
225,
878
34.2
307,
125
46.5
127,
551
19.3
660,
553
363,
965
55.1
28
Penn
sylv
ania
2,07
6,76
171
.419
4,79
56.
763
8,70
721
.92,
910,
262
1,34
7,67
646
.338
Rho
de Is
land
66,5
4737
.585
,933
48.4
25,1
8514
.217
7,66
456
,142
31.6
51
Sout
h C
arol
inae
631,
040
69.7
64,0
197.
121
0,34
723
.290
5,40
539
5,66
243
.743
Sout
h D
akot
a89
,349
95.7
4,05
64.
393
,404
64,3
5668
.94
Tenn
esse
e62
7,23
378
.117
5,87
021
.980
3,10
347
3,02
858
.919
Texa
s95
7,32
655
.642
2,43
224
.534
2,48
319
.91,
722,
241
1,05
9,17
861
.514
Uta
h11
2,52
038
.512
7,03
143
.453
,068
18.1
292,
619
206,
297
70.5
2
Ver
mon
t12
7,38
087
.019
,065
13.0
146,
445
73,2
2350
.034
Virgi
nia
712,
866
78.0
200,
889
22.0
913,
755
551,
908
60.4
16
Was
hing
tona
13,7
800.
61,
813,
835
78.5
484,
082
20.9
2,31
1,69
774
2,79
732
.150
Wes
t Virgi
niad
176,
309
37.5
230,
907
49.1
63,0
3513
.447
0,25
123
7,00
650
.433
Wisc
onsin
975,
985
86.8
147,
875
13.2
1,12
3,86
178
1,89
769
.63
Wyo
min
ga80
20.
516
1,50
299
.516
2,30
411
0,00
867
.85
Non
-fed
eral
tota
l$3
3,42
9,36
257
.6$9
,886
,742
17.0
$14,
765,
132
25.4
$58,
081,
235
$29,
727,
885
51.2
All
Fede
ralf
3,77
5,51
91,
110,
074
29.4
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
sg3,
006,
009
924,
622
30.8
TO
TA
L$6
1,85
6,75
4$3
0,83
7,95
949
.9
Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. B
enef
its p
aid
unde
r Sp
ecia
l Fun
ds, S
econ
d In
jury
Fun
ds and
Gua
rant
y Fu
nds a
re
pror
ated
acr
oss p
riva
te car
rier
s, stat
e fu
nds a
nd se
lf-in
sure
d be
nefit
s pay
men
ts.
a.St
ates
with
exc
lusiv
e fu
nds (
Ohi
o, N
orth
Dak
ota, W
ashi
ngto
n, and
Wyo
min
g) m
ay h
ave sm
all a
mou
nts o
f ben
efits
pai
d in
the pr
ivat
e ca
rrier ca
tego
ry. T
his r
esul
ts fr
om th
e fa
ct th
at so
me
empl
oyer
s doi
ng b
usin
ess i
n stat
es w
ith exc
lusiv
e stat
e fu
nds m
ay n
eed
to o
btai
n co
vera
ge fr
om p
riva
te car
rier
s und
er th
e U
SL &
HW
act
or em
ploy
ers l
iabi
lity
cove
rage
whi
ch th
e stat
e fu
ndis
not a
utho
rize
d to
pro
vide
. In
addi
tion,
priva
te car
rier
s may
pro
vide
exc
ess c
ompe
nsat
ion
cove
rage
in so
me of
thes
e stat
es.
b. S
elf-in
sura
nce in
clud
es in
divi
dual se
lf-in
sure
rs and
gro
up se
lf-in
sura
nce.
c. F
or fu
rthe
r de
tails
see Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
d.
Wes
t Virgi
nia co
mpl
eted
the tran
sitio
n from
mon
opol
istic st
ate fu
nd to
com
petit
ive in
sura
nce stat
us o
n Ju
ly 1
, 200
8.
e. S
outh
Car
olin
s's S
tate
Acc
iden
t Fun
d is
not a
com
petit
ive stat
e fu
nd.
f. Fe
dera
l ben
efits
includ
e: th
ose pa
id u
nder
the Fe
dera
l Em
ploy
ees’
Com
pens
atio
n Act
for civi
lian
empl
oyee
s; th
e po
rtio
n of
the Black
Lun
g be
nefit
pro
gram
that
is fi
nanc
ed b
y em
ploy
ers;
and
a po
rtio
n of
ben
efits
und
er th
e Lo
ngsh
ore an
d H
arbo
r Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsat
ion
Act
that
are
not
refle
cted
in st
ate da
ta, n
amely, b
enef
its p
aid
by se
lf-in
sure
d em
ploy
ers a
nd b
y sp
ecia
l fun
dsun
der th
e LH
WC
A.
See App
endi
x H
for m
ore in
form
atio
n ab
out f
eder
al p
rogr
ams.
g. In
clud
ed in
the Fe
dera
l ben
efits
tota
l.h.
The
se d
ata m
ay n
ot in
clud
e se
cond
inju
ry fu
nd fo
r all s
tate
s and
may
bean
und
erstat
emen
t of t
otal p
aym
ents d
ata.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocial I
nsur
ance
estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta re
ceiv
ed fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, the
U.S
. Dep
artm
ent o
f Lab
or, A
.M. B
est,
and
the N
atio
nal C
ounc
il on
Com
pens
atio
n In
sura
nce.
sensitive to the premium level in the private insur-ance market. When premiums in individual statesare rising, employers move to self-insurance, whenthey are declining, employers move to insurance.Finally, 3) The NASI methods for estimating bene-fits paid by self-insured employers (discussed indetail in the Sources and Methods section on theNASI website www.nasi.org) vary across states,depending on responses to the NASI survey andavailability of A.M. Best data. Hence, measurementerrors may account for some of the observed varia-tion in the share of benefits paid by self-insuredemployers.
Share of Medical Benefits. Table 8 also shows theshare of workers’ compensation benefits going tomedical care in each state. Nationally, about half ofall workers’ compensation benefits go to medicalcare, but across states the share of benefits for med-ical care varies from one-third to three-fourths oftotal benefits paid. In 2012, Indiana had the largestshare of benefits paid for medical care (73.4%) whileRhode Island had the smallest (31.6%). The variation in medical shares across states reflectsbetween-state differences in the quantity and pricesof medical services provided to injured workers, andthe relative generosity of cash benefits paid in eachstate. States with more generous provisions for cashbenefits will have smaller shares of medical benefits,all else equal. Conversely, a state may have a highshare of medical benefits even though the state’smedical benefits per $100 of payroll are below thenational average because the state’s cash benefits per$100 of payroll are even further below the nationalaverage.
State Benefit Trends. Table 9 shows total workers’compensation benefits paid in each state in the years2008 to 2012. Across the five year period, total ben-
efits paid increased in about half of jurisdictions,and decreased in the other half. The largest percent-age increases occurred in North Dakota (42.7%),New York (38.8%) and New Mexico (27.4%). Thelargest percentage decreases occurred in Kentucky(16.6%), South Dakota (16.0%), and Michigan(15.5%).
There is considerable variation in benefit trendswithin, as well as across, the five-year period. Maineand Massachusetts, for example, had about the samepercentage increase in benefits between 2008 and2012 (16% and 15.3% respectively), but the timingwas quite different. Massachusetts experienced alarge increase in benefits paid in the first half of theperiod (+19.4% between 2008 and 2010), followedby a small decrease in the second half (-3.4%between 2010 and 2012). Maine experienced a smalldecrease in the first half (-4.6% between 2008 and2010), followed by a sharp increase (+21.7%between 2010 and 2012).
A number of factors contribute to variations in theamount of benefits paid within a state from year toyear, including changes in the number of work relat-ed injuries and illnesses, modifications in the state’slegal system for processing claims (e.g. changes instatutory rules, court rulings, administrative process-es, reporting requirements); fluctuations in the statelabor market (e.g. changes in employment, wagerates, mix of occupations/industries); changes in thecosts of medical care; and differences in the waysstakeholders interact within the system.
Table 10 shows trends in medical benefits in eachstate for the period 2008-2012. In about half thejurisdictions, increases in medical benefits are associ-ated with increases in the number of covered workersand vice versa. North Dakota, for example, had thelargest percentage increase in medical benefitsbetween 2008 and 2012 (46.8%), corresponding toa large increase in covered workers in the state(17.9%). Ohio had the largest percentage decrease in medical benefits (-23.5%), and also experienced adecrease in covered workers (3.7%). In most stateswhere benefits and coverage move in opposite directions, the changes are small (e.g. in Indiana,coverage decreased by 2.2% while medical benefitsincreased by 2.8%). Five states (California,Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma),however, experienced double-digit percentageincreases in medical benefits between 2008 and
22 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
The share of benefits paid for medicalcare varies tremendously across
states. The variation not only reflectsbetween-state differences in
amounts paid for medical care, butalso differences in the relative generosity of cash benefits
across states.
2012, while the number of covered workers in thestate decreased by 3.5 percent or more.
Table 11 shows trends in cash benefits in each statefor the period 2008-2012. The greatest percentageincrease in cash benefits occurred in New York(42.6%); the greatest percentage decrease occurred inSouth Dakota (-20.8%). In both states, the numberof covered workers was fairly constant over the fiveyear period. Six states (Arizona, Maine, New Mexico,Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin) experi-enced double-digit percentage increases in cashbenefits between 2008 and 2012, while the numberof covered workers in the state decreased by 3.0 per-cent or more. The case of New Mexico stands out:coverage declined by 5.4 percent in the state, whilemedical benefits increased by 25.3 percent and cashbenefits by 30.6 percent20.
While the long-term national trend has been formedical benefits to grow more rapidly than cash ben-efits (as shown in Figure 3), experience varies widelyacross states and from year to year. Fourteen stateswhere total benefits increased between 2008 and2012 had medical benefits increasing faster than cashbenefits in the period. In contrast, ten states wheretotal benefits decreased had medical benefits decreas-ing faster than cash benefits.
State benefit payments can be standardized to con-trol for changes in employment and wage rates bydividing each state’s total benefits by the total wagesof covered workers in the state. The measure of ben-efits as a percentage of covered wages helps explainwhether increases in one state’s benefits paymentscan be attributed to growth in the state’s coveredpayroll or to other factors.
Table 12 shows benefits paid per $100 of coveredpayroll by state from 2008 through 2012. Trends instandardized benefits over time are somewhat differ-ent from trends in dollar measures of benefits. In 13states total benefits increased between 2008 and 2012but benefits per $100 of covered wages decreased.The trends in these 13 states generally reflect more
rapid growth in wages than in benefit payments. InAlaska, for example, there was a 12.8 percentincrease in total benefits paid, but benefits per $100of covered wages decreased by $0.03.
Between 2008 and 2012, the largest increase in ben-efits per $100 covered payroll occurred in New York($0.26) which also experienced the second largestincrease in overall benefits paid. The largest decreasein benefits paid per $100 covered payroll occurred inWest-Virginia (-$0.30).
The reader is cautioned that the data on benefitspaid per $100 covered payroll do not provide mean-ingful comparisons of the adequacy of benefitsacross states.21 The data may show higher benefitsin some states, not because benefits are more gener-ous, but because payrolls are relatively low, and/orthere is a relatively high concentration of risky occu-pations (e.g. mining). A study of benefit adequacyshould compare the benefits injured workers actual-ly receive to the wages they lose because of theiroccupational injuries or diseases. Such wage-lossstudies have been conducted in several states (e.g.California, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington,Wisconsin) but the data for estimating wage lossesare not available for most states (Boden, Reville, andBiddle 2005).
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 23
20 At the NCCI 2013 Forum, a presentation on New Mexico workers’ compensation benefits paid in 2012 showed $27 million as an“Amount from Excess Claims.” In 2011, the excess claims category did not exist.
21 As discussed in the Academy’s study panel report Adequacy of Earnings Replacement in Workers’ Compensation Programs (Hunt 2004),The standardized measure of benefits relative to covered wages could be high or low in a given state for a number of reasons com-pletely unrelated to the adequacy of benefits injured workers receive.
24 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 9
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation To
tal B
enefits Pa
id and
Five-Ye
ar Percent
Cha
nge, by State
2008
–201
2
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
Ran
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$656
,607
$625
,755
$629
,069
$616
,022
$649
,682
-4.2
3.3
-1.1
27
Alask
a21
9,97
822
2,00
522
1,95
523
9,63
524
8,03
80.
911
.812
.813
Arizo
na69
1,48
265
7,18
470
1,62
171
9,61
171
2,32
41.
51.
53.
019
Ark
ansa
s23
6,80
122
3,97
321
3,95
619
9,40
821
3,97
1-9
.60.
0-9
.645
Califo
rnia
9,77
0,73
39,
531,
461
9,57
7,76
210
,858
,138
11,5
03,6
54-2
.020
.117
.74
Col
orad
o87
3,71
883
5,02
480
2,43
676
5,24
284
5,13
6-8
.25.
3-3
.333
Con
nect
icut
784,
852
842,
669
795,
123
868,
103
887,
226
1.3
11.6
13.0
11
Delaw
are
218,
665
206,
145
211,
921
220,
830
215,
518
-3.1
1.7
-1.4
29
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
95,0
8910
4,71
910
5,63
211
1,13
698
,984
11.1
-6.3
4.1
17
Flor
ida
3,03
0,03
72,
931,
305
2,73
0,03
52,
837,
365
2,83
5,75
0-9
.93.
9-6
.440
Geo
rgia
1,61
1,22
11,
344,
524
1,45
8,57
61,
397,
850
1,45
1,81
1-9
.5-0
.5-9
.946
Haw
aii
245,
763
244,
375
242,
400
246,
780
248,
433
-1.4
2.5
1.1
23
Idah
o24
9,35
024
2,86
823
9,77
524
9,47
323
8,72
3-3
.8-0
.4-4
.337
Illin
ois
2,97
8,13
03,
062,
890
3,00
6,82
33,
047,
300
2,70
2,47
11.
0-1
0.1
-9.3
44
Indi
ana
626,
994
597,
176
598,
753
628,
075
623,
742
-4.5
4.2
-0.5
26
Iow
a56
0,25
355
3,34
256
3,59
962
2,23
664
2,14
70.
613
.914
.69
Kan
sas
417,
860
416,
026
405,
436
436,
144
424,
122
-3.0
4.6
1.5
22
Ken
tuck
y79
0,40
076
9,48
466
5,61
068
1,90
265
9,19
2-1
5.8
-1.0
-16.
651
Loui
siana
854,
647
831,
035
840,
035
882,
226
860,
330
-1.7
2.4
0.7
24
Mai
ne26
3,79
326
0,54
725
1,59
325
3,12
730
6,09
3-4
.621
.716
.07
Mar
ylan
d93
5,94
889
5,90
595
3,53
31,
006,
998
970,
734
1.9
1.8
3.7
18
Mas
sach
uset
ts84
8,72
495
1,06
21,
013,
459
1,00
1,21
397
8,82
519
.4-3
.415
.38
Michi
gan
1,40
7,28
21,
509,
881
1,27
1,89
21,
301,
061
1,18
9,48
3-9
.6-6
.5-1
5.5
49
Min
neso
ta1,
025,
607
1,07
2,91
81,
034,
661
1,01
1,63
51,
043,
694
0.9
0.9
1.8
21
Miss
issip
pi34
6,64
032
1,77
133
7,63
333
4,43
033
6,20
8-2
.6-0
.4-3
.032
Miss
ouri
907,
622
850,
106
806,
222
814,
592
838,
913
-11.
24.
1-7
.641
Mon
tana
260,
861
261,
005
266,
524
251,
708
250,
542
2.2
-6.0
-4.0
35
Neb
rask
a32
6,94
229
9,87
031
5,07
932
0,78
631
2,44
8-3
.6-0
.8-4
.438
Nev
ada
425,
673
430,
768
429,
686
395,
891
374,
085
0.9
-12.
9-1
2.1
47
New
Ham
pshi
re25
0,22
624
6,75
525
1,66
723
1,80
022
9,02
40.
6-9
.0-8
.543
New
Jersey
2,00
5,24
71,
995,
407
2,06
7,56
82,
220,
175
2,21
5,45
33.
17.
210
.515
New
Mex
ico
240,
409
246,
272
276,
126
275,
783
306,
304
14.9
10.9
27.4
3
New
Yor
k3,
887,
556
4,14
8,35
34,
617,
084
5,10
3,15
15,
394,
509
18.8
16.8
38.8
2
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1,48
6,95
31,
416,
881
1,35
7,71
01,
427,
759
1,42
5,59
6-8
.75.
0-4
.136
Nor
th D
akot
a10
5,83
511
0,52
611
4,98
112
5,96
015
1,03
38.
631
.442
.71
Ohi
o2,
490,
080
2,35
3,38
42,
268,
515
2,23
2,59
62,
130,
063
-8.9
-6.1
-14.
548
Okl
ahom
a74
4,99
678
4,74
984
2,58
184
0,57
087
3,40
713
.13.
717
.25
Ore
gon
672,
563
699,
116
679,
104
679,
233
660,
553
1.0
-2.7
-1.8
30
Penn
sylv
ania
2,90
2,10
72,
902,
311
2,90
9,86
32,
895,
406
2,91
0,26
20.
30.
00.
325
Rho
de Is
land
159,
540
160,
780
159,
979
169,
773
177,
664
0.3
11.1
11.4
14
Sout
h C
arol
ina
917,
419
891,
830
891,
283
874,
227
905,
405
-2.8
1.6
-1.3
28
Sout
h D
akot
a11
1,18
493
,578
100,
348
90,8
4493
,404
-9.7
-6.9
-16.
050
Tenn
esse
e78
8,50
874
3,92
778
3,68
777
6,94
380
3,10
3-0
.62.
51.
920
Texa
s1,
526,
140
1,60
0,97
71,
511,
277
1,59
9,44
91,
722,
241
-1.0
14.0
12.8
12
Uta
h31
7,07
930
1,15
927
4,62
427
2,20
729
2,61
9-1
3.4
6.6
-7.7
42
Ver
mon
t12
8,42
414
4,31
513
7,64
813
8,67
814
6,44
57.
26.
414
.010
Virgi
nia
945,
845
860,
622
786,
402
891,
311
913,
755
-16.
916
.2-3
.434
Was
hing
ton
2,19
2,88
52,
312,
186
2,30
8,67
92,
316,
713
2,31
1,69
75.
30.
15.
416
Wes
t Virgi
nia
494,
810
527,
231
537,
135
519,
409
470,
251
8.6
-12.
5-5
.039
Wisc
onsin
1,15
8,45
81,
116,
312
1,07
1,87
71,
099,
950
1,12
3,86
1-7
.54.
8-3
.031
Wyo
min
g13
8,61
914
0,29
715
4,07
716
2,96
016
2,30
411
.25.
317
.16
Non
-fed
eral
tota
l$5
5,32
6,55
4$5
4,89
2,76
2$5
4,79
3,01
1$5
7,26
3,81
4$5
8,08
1,23
5-1
.06.
05.
0
All
Fede
rala
3,42
3,82
53,
542,
605
3,67
2,05
83,
776,
993
3,77
5,51
97.
32.
810
.3
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
sb2,
676,
370
2,76
3,88
52,
889,
321
2,99
4,12
23,
006,
009
8.0
4.0
12.3
TO
TA
L$5
8,75
0,37
9$5
8,43
5,36
7$5
8,46
5,06
9$6
1,04
0,80
7$6
1,85
6,75
4-0
.55.
85.
3
a.
Includ
es fe
dera
l ben
efits
as i
nclu
ded
in T
able 8
.b.
In
clud
ed in
the Fe
dera
l ben
efits
tota
l.Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. D
ata so
urce
for ea
ch st
ate is
desc
ribe
d in
det
ails
in Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, A.M
. Bes
t, N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Insu
ranc
e C
omm
issio
ners (N
AIC
), th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
and
the
Social S
ecur
ity A
dmin
istra
tion.
Tota
l Ben
efits
(tho
usan
ds)
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 25
Table 9
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation To
tal B
enefits Pa
id and
Five-Ye
ar Percent
Cha
nge, by State
2008
–201
2
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
Ran
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$656
,607
$625
,755
$629
,069
$616
,022
$649
,682
-4.2
3.3
-1.1
27
Alask
a21
9,97
822
2,00
522
1,95
523
9,63
524
8,03
80.
911
.812
.813
Arizo
na69
1,48
265
7,18
470
1,62
171
9,61
171
2,32
41.
51.
53.
019
Ark
ansa
s23
6,80
122
3,97
321
3,95
619
9,40
821
3,97
1-9
.60.
0-9
.645
Califo
rnia
9,77
0,73
39,
531,
461
9,57
7,76
210
,858
,138
11,5
03,6
54-2
.020
.117
.74
Col
orad
o87
3,71
883
5,02
480
2,43
676
5,24
284
5,13
6-8
.25.
3-3
.333
Con
nect
icut
784,
852
842,
669
795,
123
868,
103
887,
226
1.3
11.6
13.0
11
Delaw
are
218,
665
206,
145
211,
921
220,
830
215,
518
-3.1
1.7
-1.4
29
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
95,0
8910
4,71
910
5,63
211
1,13
698
,984
11.1
-6.3
4.1
17
Flor
ida
3,03
0,03
72,
931,
305
2,73
0,03
52,
837,
365
2,83
5,75
0-9
.93.
9-6
.440
Geo
rgia
1,61
1,22
11,
344,
524
1,45
8,57
61,
397,
850
1,45
1,81
1-9
.5-0
.5-9
.946
Haw
aii
245,
763
244,
375
242,
400
246,
780
248,
433
-1.4
2.5
1.1
23
Idah
o24
9,35
024
2,86
823
9,77
524
9,47
323
8,72
3-3
.8-0
.4-4
.337
Illin
ois
2,97
8,13
03,
062,
890
3,00
6,82
33,
047,
300
2,70
2,47
11.
0-1
0.1
-9.3
44
Indi
ana
626,
994
597,
176
598,
753
628,
075
623,
742
-4.5
4.2
-0.5
26
Iow
a56
0,25
355
3,34
256
3,59
962
2,23
664
2,14
70.
613
.914
.69
Kan
sas
417,
860
416,
026
405,
436
436,
144
424,
122
-3.0
4.6
1.5
22
Ken
tuck
y79
0,40
076
9,48
466
5,61
068
1,90
265
9,19
2-1
5.8
-1.0
-16.
651
Loui
siana
854,
647
831,
035
840,
035
882,
226
860,
330
-1.7
2.4
0.7
24
Mai
ne26
3,79
326
0,54
725
1,59
325
3,12
730
6,09
3-4
.621
.716
.07
Mar
ylan
d93
5,94
889
5,90
595
3,53
31,
006,
998
970,
734
1.9
1.8
3.7
18
Mas
sach
uset
ts84
8,72
495
1,06
21,
013,
459
1,00
1,21
397
8,82
519
.4-3
.415
.38
Michi
gan
1,40
7,28
21,
509,
881
1,27
1,89
21,
301,
061
1,18
9,48
3-9
.6-6
.5-1
5.5
49
Min
neso
ta1,
025,
607
1,07
2,91
81,
034,
661
1,01
1,63
51,
043,
694
0.9
0.9
1.8
21
Miss
issip
pi34
6,64
032
1,77
133
7,63
333
4,43
033
6,20
8-2
.6-0
.4-3
.032
Miss
ouri
907,
622
850,
106
806,
222
814,
592
838,
913
-11.
24.
1-7
.641
Mon
tana
260,
861
261,
005
266,
524
251,
708
250,
542
2.2
-6.0
-4.0
35
Neb
rask
a32
6,94
229
9,87
031
5,07
932
0,78
631
2,44
8-3
.6-0
.8-4
.438
Nev
ada
425,
673
430,
768
429,
686
395,
891
374,
085
0.9
-12.
9-1
2.1
47
New
Ham
pshi
re25
0,22
624
6,75
525
1,66
723
1,80
022
9,02
40.
6-9
.0-8
.543
New
Jersey
2,00
5,24
71,
995,
407
2,06
7,56
82,
220,
175
2,21
5,45
33.
17.
210
.515
New
Mex
ico
240,
409
246,
272
276,
126
275,
783
306,
304
14.9
10.9
27.4
3
New
Yor
k3,
887,
556
4,14
8,35
34,
617,
084
5,10
3,15
15,
394,
509
18.8
16.8
38.8
2
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1,48
6,95
31,
416,
881
1,35
7,71
01,
427,
759
1,42
5,59
6-8
.75.
0-4
.136
Nor
th D
akot
a10
5,83
511
0,52
611
4,98
112
5,96
015
1,03
38.
631
.442
.71
Ohi
o2,
490,
080
2,35
3,38
42,
268,
515
2,23
2,59
62,
130,
063
-8.9
-6.1
-14.
548
Okl
ahom
a74
4,99
678
4,74
984
2,58
184
0,57
087
3,40
713
.13.
717
.25
Ore
gon
672,
563
699,
116
679,
104
679,
233
660,
553
1.0
-2.7
-1.8
30
Penn
sylv
ania
2,90
2,10
72,
902,
311
2,90
9,86
32,
895,
406
2,91
0,26
20.
30.
00.
325
Rho
de Is
land
159,
540
160,
780
159,
979
169,
773
177,
664
0.3
11.1
11.4
14
Sout
h C
arol
ina
917,
419
891,
830
891,
283
874,
227
905,
405
-2.8
1.6
-1.3
28
Sout
h D
akot
a11
1,18
493
,578
100,
348
90,8
4493
,404
-9.7
-6.9
-16.
050
Tenn
esse
e78
8,50
874
3,92
778
3,68
777
6,94
380
3,10
3-0
.62.
51.
920
Texa
s1,
526,
140
1,60
0,97
71,
511,
277
1,59
9,44
91,
722,
241
-1.0
14.0
12.8
12
Uta
h31
7,07
930
1,15
927
4,62
427
2,20
729
2,61
9-1
3.4
6.6
-7.7
42
Ver
mon
t12
8,42
414
4,31
513
7,64
813
8,67
814
6,44
57.
26.
414
.010
Virgi
nia
945,
845
860,
622
786,
402
891,
311
913,
755
-16.
916
.2-3
.434
Was
hing
ton
2,19
2,88
52,
312,
186
2,30
8,67
92,
316,
713
2,31
1,69
75.
30.
15.
416
Wes
t Virgi
nia
494,
810
527,
231
537,
135
519,
409
470,
251
8.6
-12.
5-5
.039
Wisc
onsin
1,15
8,45
81,
116,
312
1,07
1,87
71,
099,
950
1,12
3,86
1-7
.54.
8-3
.031
Wyo
min
g13
8,61
914
0,29
715
4,07
716
2,96
016
2,30
411
.25.
317
.16
Non
-fed
eral
tota
l$5
5,32
6,55
4$5
4,89
2,76
2$5
4,79
3,01
1$5
7,26
3,81
4$5
8,08
1,23
5-1
.06.
05.
0
All
Fede
rala
3,42
3,82
53,
542,
605
3,67
2,05
83,
776,
993
3,77
5,51
97.
32.
810
.3
Fede
ral e
mpl
oyee
sb2,
676,
370
2,76
3,88
52,
889,
321
2,99
4,12
23,
006,
009
8.0
4.0
12.3
TO
TA
L$5
8,75
0,37
9$5
8,43
5,36
7$5
8,46
5,06
9$6
1,04
0,80
7$6
1,85
6,75
4-0
.55.
85.
3
a.
Includ
es fe
dera
l ben
efits
as i
nclu
ded
in T
able 8
.b.
In
clud
ed in
the Fe
dera
l ben
efits
tota
l.Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. D
ata so
urce
for ea
ch st
ate is
desc
ribe
d in
det
ails
in Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, A.M
. Bes
t, N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Insu
ranc
e C
omm
issio
ners (N
AIC
), th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
and
the
Social S
ecur
ity A
dmin
istra
tion.
26 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 10
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation M
edical B
enefits Pa
id and
Five-Ye
ar Percent
Cha
nge, by State
2008
–201
2
Two-
Year
Five
-Yea
rRan
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$451
,746
$423
,010
$434
,057
$417
,047
$438
,535
-3.9
1.0
-2.9
34
Alask
a14
1,00
614
7,41
114
5,60
315
6,48
216
7,92
13.
315
.319
.16
Arizo
na47
0,89
940
8,11
143
9,21
545
6,95
346
7,99
7-6
.76.
6-0
.630
Ark
ansa
s15
4,15
814
7,37
413
7,78
812
7,82
014
0,36
5-1
0.6
1.9
-8.9
45
Califo
rnia
5,20
9,77
95,
187,
027
5,22
1,82
66,
301,
829
6,63
7,55
60.
227
.127
.43
Col
orad
o43
5,98
541
9,18
240
5,23
042
9,30
148
0,88
3-7
.118
.710
.315
Con
nect
icut
348,
474
366,
561
360,
191
404,
536
411,
673
3.4
14.3
18.1
7
Delaw
are
131,
199
113,
586
122,
914
130,
731
129,
526
-6.3
5.4
-1.3
33
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
33,7
5739
,270
35,9
1538
,008
34,2
496.
4-4
.61.
527
Flor
ida
1,94
8,31
41,
887,
760
1,79
3,63
31,
855,
637
1,87
7,26
7-7
.94.
7-3
.635
Geo
rgia
779,
831
664,
195
732,
205
704,
517
734,
616
-6.1
0.3
-5.8
39
Haw
aii
106,
170
105,
081
105,
444
110,
804
108,
069
-0.7
2.5
1.8
25
Idah
o15
3,35
114
9,12
115
0,81
915
9,91
215
4,93
1-1
.72.
71.
028
Illin
ois
1,44
1,41
51,
467,
124
1,42
8,24
11,
453,
562
1,18
6,38
5-0
.9-1
6.9
-17.
749
Indi
ana
445,
166
424,
592
428,
707
459,
751
457,
827
-3.7
6.8
2.8
24
Iow
a30
3,09
729
8,80
530
6,59
833
2,89
636
2,17
11.
218
.119
.55
Kan
sas
250,
716
246,
288
222,
179
244,
677
248,
111
-11.
411
.7-1
.031
Ken
tuck
y45
4,48
043
9,37
537
8,73
238
3,91
136
6,51
1-1
6.7
-3.2
-19.
450
Loui
siana
431,
597
450,
421
446,
731
468,
462
453,
394
3.5
1.5
5.1
19
Mai
ne12
4,51
012
0,37
312
3,02
912
3,77
914
2,64
0-1
.215
.914
.612
Mar
ylan
d42
0,24
139
9,57
443
5,76
546
5,23
344
0,71
33.
71.
14.
920
Mas
sach
uset
ts30
2,92
432
5,90
634
5,54
234
2,41
634
7,49
614
.10.
614
.711
Michi
gan
505,
331
530,
182
508,
456
503,
694
422,
455
0.6
-16.
9-1
6.4
48
Min
neso
ta55
0,45
257
8,53
355
1,91
254
6,68
756
8,95
90.
33.
13.
423
Miss
issip
pi20
5,55
819
0,81
021
1,02
119
9,98
918
9,95
82.
7-1
0.0
-7.6
43
Miss
ouri
507,
361
465,
008
448,
259
482,
239
480,
697
-11.
67.
2-5
.337
Mon
tana
154,
690
148,
251
160,
181
157,
569
157,
341
3.5
-1.8
1.7
26
Neb
rask
a20
3,35
818
1,42
119
2,51
319
7,92
519
2,15
5-5
.3-0
.2-5
.538
Nev
ada
197,
086
198,
584
187,
773
186,
860
183,
302
-4.7
-2.4
-7.0
41
New
Ham
pshi
re15
3,88
915
1,26
115
4,02
015
3,91
515
2,07
20.
1-1
.3-1
.232
New
Jersey
968,
781
967,
281
1,02
7,49
61,
114,
434
1,13
6,78
46.
110
.617
.39
New
Mex
ico
143,
044
147,
517
161,
257
159,
403
179,
188
12.7
11.1
25.3
4
New
Yor
k1,
399,
520
1,05
3,71
11,
718,
807
1,83
1,00
91,
847,
811
22.8
7.5
32.0
2
Nor
th C
arol
ina
678,
051
633,
346
600,
108
643,
919
652,
923
-11.
58.
8-3
.736
Nor
th D
akot
a61
,935
66,8
6668
,734
74,6
9190
,894
11.0
32.2
46.8
1
Ohi
o1,
093,
161
998,
833
963,
557
945,
799
836,
197
-11.
9-1
3.2
-23.
551
Okl
ahom
a32
6,30
833
9,01
237
2,42
137
3,21
338
5,17
314
.13.
418
.08
Ore
gon
349,
060
363,
540
344,
306
364,
748
363,
965
-1.4
5.7
4.3
21
Penn
sylv
ania
1,29
5,99
31,
323,
249
1,29
2,30
61,
321,
538
1,34
7,67
6-0
.34.
34.
022
Rho
de Is
land
51,2
1253
,701
53,1
1356
,874
56,1
423.
75.
79.
616
Sout
h C
arol
ina
376,
142
368,
326
385,
034
382,
037
395,
662
2.4
2.8
5.2
18
Sout
h D
akot
a74
,493
61,2
0061
,915
60,0
4864
,356
-16.
93.
9-1
3.6
47
Tenn
esse
e41
7,12
140
0,97
744
5,13
446
3,83
547
3,02
86.
76.
313
.413
Texa
s93
3,99
795
4,18
289
7,69
898
8,45
91,
059,
178
-3.9
18.0
13.4
14
Uta
h22
7,02
820
8,10
118
8,39
219
2,72
220
6,29
7-1
7.0
9.5
-9.1
46
Ver
mon
t68
,193
71,2
9171
,439
71,4
1973
,223
4.8
2.5
7.4
17
Virgi
nia
548,
590
498,
300
470,
269
533,
004
551,
908
-14.
317
.40.
629
Was
hing
ton
798,
994
808,
271
760,
982
750,
282
742,
797
-4.8
-2.4
-7.0
42
Wes
t Virgi
nia
252,
643
262,
926
273,
410
246,
200
237,
006
8.2
-13.
3-6
.240
Wisc
onsin
855,
073
768,
661
749,
586
770,
936
781,
897
-12.
34.
3-8
.644
Wyo
min
g95
,206
94,6
9410
2,09
510
8,70
711
0,00
87.
27.
815
.510
Tota
l Non
-fed
eral
Med
ical
ben
efits
$28,
031,
086
$27,
118,
181
$27,
622,
557
$29,
450,
419
$29,
727,
885
-1.5
7.6
6.1
a.
Includ
es fe
dera
l ben
efits
as i
nclu
ded
in T
able 8
.b.
In
clud
ed in
the Fe
dera
l ben
efits
tota
l.Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. D
ata so
urce
for ea
ch st
ate is
desc
ribe
d in
det
ails
in Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, A.M
. Bes
t, N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Insu
ranc
e C
omm
issio
ners (N
AIC
), th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
and
the
Social S
ecur
ity A
dmin
istra
tion.
Med
ical B
enef
its (t
hous
ands
)
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 27
Table 10
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation M
edical B
enefits Pa
id and
Five-Ye
ar Percent
Cha
nge, by State
2008
–201
2
Two-
Year
Five
-Yea
rRan
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$451
,746
$423
,010
$434
,057
$417
,047
$438
,535
-3.9
1.0
-2.9
34
Alask
a14
1,00
614
7,41
114
5,60
315
6,48
216
7,92
13.
315
.319
.16
Arizo
na47
0,89
940
8,11
143
9,21
545
6,95
346
7,99
7-6
.76.
6-0
.630
Ark
ansa
s15
4,15
814
7,37
413
7,78
812
7,82
014
0,36
5-1
0.6
1.9
-8.9
45
Califo
rnia
5,20
9,77
95,
187,
027
5,22
1,82
66,
301,
829
6,63
7,55
60.
227
.127
.43
Col
orad
o43
5,98
541
9,18
240
5,23
042
9,30
148
0,88
3-7
.118
.710
.315
Con
nect
icut
348,
474
366,
561
360,
191
404,
536
411,
673
3.4
14.3
18.1
7
Delaw
are
131,
199
113,
586
122,
914
130,
731
129,
526
-6.3
5.4
-1.3
33
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
33,7
5739
,270
35,9
1538
,008
34,2
496.
4-4
.61.
527
Flor
ida
1,94
8,31
41,
887,
760
1,79
3,63
31,
855,
637
1,87
7,26
7-7
.94.
7-3
.635
Geo
rgia
779,
831
664,
195
732,
205
704,
517
734,
616
-6.1
0.3
-5.8
39
Haw
aii
106,
170
105,
081
105,
444
110,
804
108,
069
-0.7
2.5
1.8
25
Idah
o15
3,35
114
9,12
115
0,81
915
9,91
215
4,93
1-1
.72.
71.
028
Illin
ois
1,44
1,41
51,
467,
124
1,42
8,24
11,
453,
562
1,18
6,38
5-0
.9-1
6.9
-17.
749
Indi
ana
445,
166
424,
592
428,
707
459,
751
457,
827
-3.7
6.8
2.8
24
Iow
a30
3,09
729
8,80
530
6,59
833
2,89
636
2,17
11.
218
.119
.55
Kan
sas
250,
716
246,
288
222,
179
244,
677
248,
111
-11.
411
.7-1
.031
Ken
tuck
y45
4,48
043
9,37
537
8,73
238
3,91
136
6,51
1-1
6.7
-3.2
-19.
450
Loui
siana
431,
597
450,
421
446,
731
468,
462
453,
394
3.5
1.5
5.1
19
Mai
ne12
4,51
012
0,37
312
3,02
912
3,77
914
2,64
0-1
.215
.914
.612
Mar
ylan
d42
0,24
139
9,57
443
5,76
546
5,23
344
0,71
33.
71.
14.
920
Mas
sach
uset
ts30
2,92
432
5,90
634
5,54
234
2,41
634
7,49
614
.10.
614
.711
Michi
gan
505,
331
530,
182
508,
456
503,
694
422,
455
0.6
-16.
9-1
6.4
48
Min
neso
ta55
0,45
257
8,53
355
1,91
254
6,68
756
8,95
90.
33.
13.
423
Miss
issip
pi20
5,55
819
0,81
021
1,02
119
9,98
918
9,95
82.
7-1
0.0
-7.6
43
Miss
ouri
507,
361
465,
008
448,
259
482,
239
480,
697
-11.
67.
2-5
.337
Mon
tana
154,
690
148,
251
160,
181
157,
569
157,
341
3.5
-1.8
1.7
26
Neb
rask
a20
3,35
818
1,42
119
2,51
319
7,92
519
2,15
5-5
.3-0
.2-5
.538
Nev
ada
197,
086
198,
584
187,
773
186,
860
183,
302
-4.7
-2.4
-7.0
41
New
Ham
pshi
re15
3,88
915
1,26
115
4,02
015
3,91
515
2,07
20.
1-1
.3-1
.232
New
Jersey
968,
781
967,
281
1,02
7,49
61,
114,
434
1,13
6,78
46.
110
.617
.39
New
Mex
ico
143,
044
147,
517
161,
257
159,
403
179,
188
12.7
11.1
25.3
4
New
Yor
k1,
399,
520
1,05
3,71
11,
718,
807
1,83
1,00
91,
847,
811
22.8
7.5
32.0
2
Nor
th C
arol
ina
678,
051
633,
346
600,
108
643,
919
652,
923
-11.
58.
8-3
.736
Nor
th D
akot
a61
,935
66,8
6668
,734
74,6
9190
,894
11.0
32.2
46.8
1
Ohi
o1,
093,
161
998,
833
963,
557
945,
799
836,
197
-11.
9-1
3.2
-23.
551
Okl
ahom
a32
6,30
833
9,01
237
2,42
137
3,21
338
5,17
314
.13.
418
.08
Ore
gon
349,
060
363,
540
344,
306
364,
748
363,
965
-1.4
5.7
4.3
21
Penn
sylv
ania
1,29
5,99
31,
323,
249
1,29
2,30
61,
321,
538
1,34
7,67
6-0
.34.
34.
022
Rho
de Is
land
51,2
1253
,701
53,1
1356
,874
56,1
423.
75.
79.
616
Sout
h C
arol
ina
376,
142
368,
326
385,
034
382,
037
395,
662
2.4
2.8
5.2
18
Sout
h D
akot
a74
,493
61,2
0061
,915
60,0
4864
,356
-16.
93.
9-1
3.6
47
Tenn
esse
e41
7,12
140
0,97
744
5,13
446
3,83
547
3,02
86.
76.
313
.413
Texa
s93
3,99
795
4,18
289
7,69
898
8,45
91,
059,
178
-3.9
18.0
13.4
14
Uta
h22
7,02
820
8,10
118
8,39
219
2,72
220
6,29
7-1
7.0
9.5
-9.1
46
Ver
mon
t68
,193
71,2
9171
,439
71,4
1973
,223
4.8
2.5
7.4
17
Virgi
nia
548,
590
498,
300
470,
269
533,
004
551,
908
-14.
317
.40.
629
Was
hing
ton
798,
994
808,
271
760,
982
750,
282
742,
797
-4.8
-2.4
-7.0
42
Wes
t Virgi
nia
252,
643
262,
926
273,
410
246,
200
237,
006
8.2
-13.
3-6
.240
Wisc
onsin
855,
073
768,
661
749,
586
770,
936
781,
897
-12.
34.
3-8
.644
Wyo
min
g95
,206
94,6
9410
2,09
510
8,70
711
0,00
87.
27.
815
.510
Tota
l Non
-fed
eral
Med
ical
ben
efits
$28,
031,
086
$27,
118,
181
$27,
622,
557
$29,
450,
419
$29,
727,
885
-1.5
7.6
6.1
a.
Includ
es fe
dera
l ben
efits
as i
nclu
ded
in T
able 8
.b.
In
clud
ed in
the Fe
dera
l ben
efits
tota
l.Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. D
ata so
urce
for ea
ch st
ate is
desc
ribe
d in
det
ails
in Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, A.M
. Bes
t, N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Insu
ranc
e C
omm
issio
ners (N
AIC
), th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
and
the
Social S
ecur
ity A
dmin
istra
tion.
28 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 11
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Cash Ben
efits Pa
id and
Five-Ye
ar Percent
Cha
nge, by State
2008
–201
2
Two-
Year
Five
-Yea
rRan
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$204
,862
$202
,744
$195
,011
$198
,975
$211
,147
-4.8
8.3
3.1
21
Alask
a78
,972
74,5
9476
,353
83,1
5380
,116
-3.3
4.9
1.4
23
Arizo
na22
0,58
324
9,07
326
2,40
626
2,65
824
4,32
719
.0-6
.910
.813
Ark
ansa
s82
,644
76,5
9976
,168
71,5
8773
,606
-7.8
-3.4
-10.
940
Califo
rnia
4,56
0,95
44,
344,
435
4,35
5,93
64,
556,
309
4,86
6,09
8-4
.511
.76.
716
Col
orad
o43
7,73
341
5,84
239
7,20
633
5,94
136
4,25
4-9
.3-8
.3-1
6.8
49
Con
nect
icut
436,
378
476,
108
434,
932
463,
567
475,
553
-0.3
9.3
9.0
14
Delaw
are
87,4
6692
,559
89,0
0790
,099
85,9
921.
8-3
.4-1
.727
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
61,3
3265
,449
69,7
1773
,127
64,7
3613
.7-7
.15.
517
Flor
ida
1,08
1,72
31,
043,
544
936,
402
981,
728
958,
484
-13.
42.
4-1
1.4
42
Geo
rgia
831,
390
680,
329
726,
371
693,
334
717,
194
-12.
6-1
.3-1
3.7
46
Haw
aii
139,
593
139,
294
136,
956
135,
976
140,
365
-1.9
2.5
0.6
24
Idah
o96
,000
93,7
4788
,957
89,5
6183
,792
-7.3
-5.8
-12.
744
Illin
ois
1,53
6,71
51,
595,
766
1,57
8,58
21,
593,
738
1,51
6,08
62.
7-4
.0-1
.326
Indi
ana
181,
828
172,
584
170,
046
168,
324
165,
915
-6.5
-2.4
-8.8
37
Iow
a25
7,15
625
4,53
725
7,00
128
9,34
027
9,97
6-0
.18.
98.
915
Kan
sas
167,
144
169,
739
183,
257
191,
467
176,
011
9.6
-4.0
5.3
18
Ken
tuck
y33
5,92
033
0,10
828
6,87
829
7,99
129
2,68
1-1
4.6
2.0
-12.
945
Loui
siana
423,
050
380,
614
393,
304
413,
764
406,
936
-7.0
3.5
-3.8
31
Mai
ne13
9,28
314
0,17
512
8,56
412
9,34
816
3,45
4-7
.727
.117
.46
Mar
ylan
d51
5,70
749
6,33
251
7,76
954
1,76
553
0,02
10.
42.
42.
822
Mas
sach
uset
ts54
5,80
062
5,15
666
7,91
765
8,79
763
1,32
922
.4-5
.515
.78
Michi
gan
901,
950
979,
700
763,
435
797,
368
767,
028
-15.
40.
5-1
5.0
47
Min
neso
ta47
5,15
449
4,38
548
2,74
946
4,94
847
4,73
41.
6-1
.7-0
.125
Miss
issip
pi14
1,08
313
0,96
112
6,61
313
4,44
114
6,25
1-1
0.3
15.5
3.7
20
Miss
ouri
400,
261
385,
098
357,
962
332,
354
358,
216
-10.
60.
1-1
0.5
39
Mon
tana
106,
170
112,
754
106,
343
94,1
3993
,202
0.2
-12.
4-1
2.2
43
Neb
rask
a12
3,58
411
8,44
912
2,56
612
2,86
112
0,29
2-0
.8-1
.9-2
.728
Nev
ada
228,
586
232,
184
241,
913
209,
030
190,
783
5.8
-21.
1-1
6.5
48
New
Ham
pshi
re96
,337
95,4
9497
,647
77,8
8576
,952
1.4
-21.
2-2
0.1
50
New
Jersey
1,03
6,46
61,
028,
125
1,04
0,07
31,
105,
741
1,07
8,66
90.
33.
74.
119
New
Mex
ico
97,3
6698
,755
114,
868
116,
380
127,
116
18.0
10.7
30.6
3
New
Yor
k2,
488,
036
3,09
4,64
22,
898,
277
3,27
2,14
23,
546,
698
16.5
22.4
42.6
1
Nor
th C
arol
ina
808,
902
783,
535
757,
602
783,
840
772,
673
-6.3
2.0
-4.5
33
Nor
th D
akot
a43
,900
43,6
6046
,247
51,2
6960
,139
5.3
30.0
37.0
2
Ohi
o1,
396,
918
1,35
4,55
01,
304,
958
1,28
6,79
71,
293,
866
-6.6
-0.8
-7.4
35
Okl
ahom
a41
8,68
844
5,73
747
0,16
046
7,35
748
8,23
512
.33.
816
.67
Ore
gon
323,
503
335,
576
334,
798
314,
485
296,
589
3.5
-11.
4-8
.336
Penn
sylv
ania
1,60
6,11
41,
579,
062
1,61
7,55
71,
573,
869
1,56
2,58
60.
7-3
.4-2
.729
Rho
de Is
land
108,
327
107,
080
106,
866
112,
899
121,
522
-1.3
13.7
12.2
11
Sout
h C
arol
ina
541,
277
523,
504
506,
249
492,
190
509,
743
-6.5
0.7
-5.8
34
Sout
h D
akot
a36
,691
32,3
7838
,433
30,7
9629
,049
4.7
-24.
4-2
0.8
51
Tenn
esse
e37
1,38
734
2,95
033
8,55
331
3,10
833
0,07
5-8
.8-2
.5-1
1.1
41
Texa
s59
2,14
264
6,79
561
3,57
861
0,98
966
3,06
33.
68.
112
.012
Uta
h90
,050
93,0
5886
,232
79,4
8486
,323
-4.2
0.1
-4.1
32
Ver
mon
t60
,231
73,0
2366
,209
67,2
5973
,223
9.9
10.6
21.6
4
Virgi
nia
397,
255
362,
322
316,
134
358,
307
361,
847
-20.
414
.5-8
.938
Was
hing
ton
1,39
3,89
11,
503,
915
1,54
7,69
71,
566,
431
1,56
8,90
011
.01.
412
.610
Wes
t Virgi
nia
242,
167
264,
305
263,
724
273,
209
233,
244
8.9
-11.
6-3
.730
Wisc
onsin
303,
385
347,
651
322,
291
329,
015
341,
964
6.2
6.1
12.7
9
Wyo
min
g43
,413
45,6
0451
,982
54,2
5352
,296
19.7
0.6
20.5
5
Tota
l Non
-fed
eral
Cas
h be
nefit
s$2
7,29
5,46
8$2
7,77
4,58
1$2
7,17
0,45
4$2
7,81
3,39
5$2
8,35
3,35
0-0
.54.
43.
9
Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. D
ata so
urce
for ea
ch st
ate is
desc
ribe
d in
det
ails
in Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, A.M
. Bes
t, N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Insu
ranc
e C
omm
issio
ners (N
AIC
), th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
and
the
Social S
ecur
ity A
dmin
istra
tion.
Cas
h Ben
efits
(in
thou
sand
s)
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 29
Table 11
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Cash Ben
efits Pa
id and
Five-Ye
ar Percent
Cha
nge, by State
2008
–201
2
Two-
Year
Five
-Yea
rRan
king
Perc
ent C
hang
ePe
rcen
t Cha
nge
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$204
,862
$202
,744
$195
,011
$198
,975
$211
,147
-4.8
8.3
3.1
21
Alask
a78
,972
74,5
9476
,353
83,1
5380
,116
-3.3
4.9
1.4
23
Arizo
na22
0,58
324
9,07
326
2,40
626
2,65
824
4,32
719
.0-6
.910
.813
Ark
ansa
s82
,644
76,5
9976
,168
71,5
8773
,606
-7.8
-3.4
-10.
940
Califo
rnia
4,56
0,95
44,
344,
435
4,35
5,93
64,
556,
309
4,86
6,09
8-4
.511
.76.
716
Col
orad
o43
7,73
341
5,84
239
7,20
633
5,94
136
4,25
4-9
.3-8
.3-1
6.8
49
Con
nect
icut
436,
378
476,
108
434,
932
463,
567
475,
553
-0.3
9.3
9.0
14
Delaw
are
87,4
6692
,559
89,0
0790
,099
85,9
921.
8-3
.4-1
.727
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
61,3
3265
,449
69,7
1773
,127
64,7
3613
.7-7
.15.
517
Flor
ida
1,08
1,72
31,
043,
544
936,
402
981,
728
958,
484
-13.
42.
4-1
1.4
42
Geo
rgia
831,
390
680,
329
726,
371
693,
334
717,
194
-12.
6-1
.3-1
3.7
46
Haw
aii
139,
593
139,
294
136,
956
135,
976
140,
365
-1.9
2.5
0.6
24
Idah
o96
,000
93,7
4788
,957
89,5
6183
,792
-7.3
-5.8
-12.
744
Illin
ois
1,53
6,71
51,
595,
766
1,57
8,58
21,
593,
738
1,51
6,08
62.
7-4
.0-1
.326
Indi
ana
181,
828
172,
584
170,
046
168,
324
165,
915
-6.5
-2.4
-8.8
37
Iow
a25
7,15
625
4,53
725
7,00
128
9,34
027
9,97
6-0
.18.
98.
915
Kan
sas
167,
144
169,
739
183,
257
191,
467
176,
011
9.6
-4.0
5.3
18
Ken
tuck
y33
5,92
033
0,10
828
6,87
829
7,99
129
2,68
1-1
4.6
2.0
-12.
945
Loui
siana
423,
050
380,
614
393,
304
413,
764
406,
936
-7.0
3.5
-3.8
31
Mai
ne13
9,28
314
0,17
512
8,56
412
9,34
816
3,45
4-7
.727
.117
.46
Mar
ylan
d51
5,70
749
6,33
251
7,76
954
1,76
553
0,02
10.
42.
42.
822
Mas
sach
uset
ts54
5,80
062
5,15
666
7,91
765
8,79
763
1,32
922
.4-5
.515
.78
Michi
gan
901,
950
979,
700
763,
435
797,
368
767,
028
-15.
40.
5-1
5.0
47
Min
neso
ta47
5,15
449
4,38
548
2,74
946
4,94
847
4,73
41.
6-1
.7-0
.125
Miss
issip
pi14
1,08
313
0,96
112
6,61
313
4,44
114
6,25
1-1
0.3
15.5
3.7
20
Miss
ouri
400,
261
385,
098
357,
962
332,
354
358,
216
-10.
60.
1-1
0.5
39
Mon
tana
106,
170
112,
754
106,
343
94,1
3993
,202
0.2
-12.
4-1
2.2
43
Neb
rask
a12
3,58
411
8,44
912
2,56
612
2,86
112
0,29
2-0
.8-1
.9-2
.728
Nev
ada
228,
586
232,
184
241,
913
209,
030
190,
783
5.8
-21.
1-1
6.5
48
New
Ham
pshi
re96
,337
95,4
9497
,647
77,8
8576
,952
1.4
-21.
2-2
0.1
50
New
Jersey
1,03
6,46
61,
028,
125
1,04
0,07
31,
105,
741
1,07
8,66
90.
33.
74.
119
New
Mex
ico
97,3
6698
,755
114,
868
116,
380
127,
116
18.0
10.7
30.6
3
New
Yor
k2,
488,
036
3,09
4,64
22,
898,
277
3,27
2,14
23,
546,
698
16.5
22.4
42.6
1
Nor
th C
arol
ina
808,
902
783,
535
757,
602
783,
840
772,
673
-6.3
2.0
-4.5
33
Nor
th D
akot
a43
,900
43,6
6046
,247
51,2
6960
,139
5.3
30.0
37.0
2
Ohi
o1,
396,
918
1,35
4,55
01,
304,
958
1,28
6,79
71,
293,
866
-6.6
-0.8
-7.4
35
Okl
ahom
a41
8,68
844
5,73
747
0,16
046
7,35
748
8,23
512
.33.
816
.67
Ore
gon
323,
503
335,
576
334,
798
314,
485
296,
589
3.5
-11.
4-8
.336
Penn
sylv
ania
1,60
6,11
41,
579,
062
1,61
7,55
71,
573,
869
1,56
2,58
60.
7-3
.4-2
.729
Rho
de Is
land
108,
327
107,
080
106,
866
112,
899
121,
522
-1.3
13.7
12.2
11
Sout
h C
arol
ina
541,
277
523,
504
506,
249
492,
190
509,
743
-6.5
0.7
-5.8
34
Sout
h D
akot
a36
,691
32,3
7838
,433
30,7
9629
,049
4.7
-24.
4-2
0.8
51
Tenn
esse
e37
1,38
734
2,95
033
8,55
331
3,10
833
0,07
5-8
.8-2
.5-1
1.1
41
Texa
s59
2,14
264
6,79
561
3,57
861
0,98
966
3,06
33.
68.
112
.012
Uta
h90
,050
93,0
5886
,232
79,4
8486
,323
-4.2
0.1
-4.1
32
Ver
mon
t60
,231
73,0
2366
,209
67,2
5973
,223
9.9
10.6
21.6
4
Virgi
nia
397,
255
362,
322
316,
134
358,
307
361,
847
-20.
414
.5-8
.938
Was
hing
ton
1,39
3,89
11,
503,
915
1,54
7,69
71,
566,
431
1,56
8,90
011
.01.
412
.610
Wes
t Virgi
nia
242,
167
264,
305
263,
724
273,
209
233,
244
8.9
-11.
6-3
.730
Wisc
onsin
303,
385
347,
651
322,
291
329,
015
341,
964
6.2
6.1
12.7
9
Wyo
min
g43
,413
45,6
0451
,982
54,2
5352
,296
19.7
0.6
20.5
5
Tota
l Non
-fed
eral
Cas
h be
nefit
s$2
7,29
5,46
8$2
7,77
4,58
1$2
7,17
0,45
4$2
7,81
3,39
5$2
8,35
3,35
0-0
.54.
43.
9
Notes:B
enef
its are
pay
men
ts in
the ca
lend
ar y
ear to
inju
red
wor
kers and
to p
rovi
ders o
f the
ir m
edical car
e. D
ata so
urce
for ea
ch st
ate is
desc
ribe
d in
det
ails
in Sources and M
ethods 2012
avai
labl
e at
ww
w.n
asi.o
rg.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
bas
ed o
n da
ta fr
om st
ate ag
encies
, A.M
. Bes
t, N
atio
nal A
ssoc
iatio
n of
Insu
ranc
e C
omm
issio
ners (N
AIC
), th
e U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
and
the
Social S
ecur
ity A
dmin
istra
tion.
30 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 12
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation To
tal B
enefits Pa
id Per $10
0 of C
overed
Wag
es, b
y State
2008
–201
2
Dol
lar Am
ount
Cha
nge
Ran
king
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$0.9
6$0
.96
$0.9
5$0
.91
$0.9
3$0
.00
-$0.
02-$
0.02
18
Alask
a1.
651.
621.
581.
631.
61-0
.07
0.04
-0.0
322
Arizo
na0.
650.
660.
710.
700.
670.
06-0
.05
0.02
13
Ark
ansa
s0.
620.
590.
560.
500.
52-0
.05
-0.0
4-0
.10
40
Califo
rnia
1.25
1.29
1.28
1.39
1.38
0.03
0.11
0.13
6
Col
orad
o0.
840.
840.
800.
730.
77-0
.04
-0.0
4-0
.07
33
Con
nect
icut
0.81
0.92
0.85
0.89
0.89
0.04
0.04
0.08
8
Delaw
are
1.11
1.10
1.11
1.11
1.05
0.01
-0.0
7-0
.06
30
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
0.27
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.26
0.03
-0.0
4-0
.02
16
Flor
ida
1.05
1.08
1.00
1.01
0.97
-0.0
5-0
.03
-0.0
838
Geo
rgia
1.00
0.89
0.95
0.88
0.87
-0.0
5-0
.08
-0.1
344
Haw
aii
1.06
1.09
1.10
1.08
1.05
0.04
-0.0
5-0
.01
15
Idah
o1.
171.
201.
181.
201.
110.
01-0
.07
-0.0
526
Illin
ois
1.07
1.17
1.13
1.10
0.94
0.06
-0.1
9-0
.13
45
Indi
ana
0.58
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.55
0.00
-0.0
3-0
.03
19
Iow
a1.
041.
061.
061.
131.
110.
020.
050.
0710
Kan
sas
0.82
0.85
0.84
0.87
0.81
0.01
-0.0
2-0
.01
14
Ken
tuck
y1.
221.
231.
041.
030.
96-0
.18
-0.0
8-0
.26
50
Loui
siana
1.15
1.14
1.14
1.16
1.09
-0.0
1-0
.05
-0.0
629
Mai
ne1.
261.
291.
231.
211.
43-0
.04
0.20
0.16
4
Mar
ylan
d0.
810.
790.
830.
860.
790.
02-0
.04
-0.0
217
Mas
sach
uset
ts0.
470.
550.
570.
540.
510.
10-0
.06
0.04
12
Michi
gan
0.82
0.96
0.80
0.78
0.68
-0.0
2-0
.12
-0.1
446
Min
neso
ta0.
850.
940.
890.
830.
820.
03-0
.07
-0.0
424
Miss
issip
pi1.
000.
971.
010.
980.
950.
01-0
.06
-0.0
525
Miss
ouri
0.89
0.88
0.84
0.83
0.82
-0.0
6-0
.02
-0.0
836
Mon
tana
1.89
1.95
1.95
1.78
1.67
0.06
-0.2
8-0
.22
48
Neb
rask
a1.
010.
940.
980.
970.
90-0
.03
-0.0
8-0
.11
43
Nev
ada
0.81
0.91
0.94
0.85
0.78
0.13
-0.1
6-0
.03
20
New
Ham
pshi
re0.
900.
930.
930.
820.
790.
03-0
.14
-0.1
142
New
Jersey
0.94
0.98
1.00
1.05
1.02
0.06
0.02
0.08
9
New
Mex
ico
0.85
0.90
1.01
0.99
1.07
0.16
0.06
0.22
2
New
Yor
k0.
760.
880.
941.
001.
020.
170.
090.
261
Nor
th C
arol
ina
0.97
0.98
0.92
0.94
0.90
-0.0
5-0
.03
-0.0
837
Nor
th D
akot
a0.
910.
920.
880.
830.
83-0
.02
-0.0
5-0
.08
35
Ohi
o1.
191.
191.
141.
070.
98-0
.06
-0.1
6-0
.22
47
Okl
ahom
a1.
361.
491.
661.
551.
520.
30-0
.13
0.16
3
Ore
gon
1.00
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.93
0.06
-0.1
2-0
.06
31
Penn
sylv
ania
1.19
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.11
0.01
-0.0
9-0
.08
39
Rho
de Is
land
0.82
0.86
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.02
0.04
0.06
11
Sout
h C
arol
ina
1.44
1.47
1.45
1.37
1.36
0.01
-0.0
9-0
.07
32
Sout
h D
akot
a0.
900.
760.
800.
690.
68-0
.10
-0.1
2-0
.23
49
Tenn
esse
e0.
770.
770.
790.
760.
740.
02-0
.05
-0.0
423
Texa
s0.
440.
480.
390.
400.
40-0
.04
0.01
-0.0
321
Uta
h0.
720.
710.
640.
610.
61-0
.08
-0.0
3-0
.11
41
Ver
mon
t1.
151.
331.
251.
221.
250.
090.
000.
10
7
Virgi
nia
0.60
0.56
0.50
0.55
0.54
-0.1
00.
04-0
.06
28
Was
hing
ton
1.69
1.82
1.80
1.72
1.63
0.12
-0.1
7-0
.05
27
Wes
t Virgi
nia
2.11
2.26
2.20
2.06
1.81
0.08
-0.3
8-0
.30
51
Wisc
onsin
1.11
1.13
1.07
1.05
1.04
-0.0
5-0
.03
-0.0
834
Wyo
min
g1.
211.
311.
411.
421.
360.
20-0
.05
0.15
5
Tota
l Non
-Fed
eral
$0.9
6$1
.00
$0.9
8$0
.98
$0.9
50.
02-0
.02
-0.0
1
Fede
ral E
mpl
oyee
s1.
461.
441.
391.
431.
45-0
.07
0.06
-0.0
1
Tota
l$0
.99
$1.0
3$1
.00
$1.0
1$0
.98
$0.0
2$-
0.02
$-0.
01
Notes:F
eder
al to
tal i
nclu
des o
nly
wor
kers cov
ered
und
er F
eder
al E
mpl
oyee
s' C
ompe
nsat
ion
Act
.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 31
Table 12
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation To
tal B
enefits Pa
id Per $10
0 of C
overed
Wag
es, b
y State
2008
–201
2
Dol
lar Am
ount
Cha
nge
Ran
king
Two-
Year
Fi
ve-Y
ear
2008
-201
2St
ate
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2008
-201
020
10-2
012
2008
-201
2(la
rges
t to
smallest in
crea
se)
Alaba
ma
$0.9
6$0
.96
$0.9
5$0
.91
$0.9
3$0
.00
-$0.
02-$
0.02
18
Alask
a1.
651.
621.
581.
631.
61-0
.07
0.04
-0.0
322
Arizo
na0.
650.
660.
710.
700.
670.
06-0
.05
0.02
13
Ark
ansa
s0.
620.
590.
560.
500.
52-0
.05
-0.0
4-0
.10
40
Califo
rnia
1.25
1.29
1.28
1.39
1.38
0.03
0.11
0.13
6
Col
orad
o0.
840.
840.
800.
730.
77-0
.04
-0.0
4-0
.07
33
Con
nect
icut
0.81
0.92
0.85
0.89
0.89
0.04
0.04
0.08
8
Delaw
are
1.11
1.10
1.11
1.11
1.05
0.01
-0.0
7-0
.06
30
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
0.27
0.31
0.30
0.30
0.26
0.03
-0.0
4-0
.02
16
Flor
ida
1.05
1.08
1.00
1.01
0.97
-0.0
5-0
.03
-0.0
838
Geo
rgia
1.00
0.89
0.95
0.88
0.87
-0.0
5-0
.08
-0.1
344
Haw
aii
1.06
1.09
1.10
1.08
1.05
0.04
-0.0
5-0
.01
15
Idah
o1.
171.
201.
181.
201.
110.
01-0
.07
-0.0
526
Illin
ois
1.07
1.17
1.13
1.10
0.94
0.06
-0.1
9-0
.13
45
Indi
ana
0.58
0.59
0.58
0.58
0.55
0.00
-0.0
3-0
.03
19
Iow
a1.
041.
061.
061.
131.
110.
020.
050.
0710
Kan
sas
0.82
0.85
0.84
0.87
0.81
0.01
-0.0
2-0
.01
14
Ken
tuck
y1.
221.
231.
041.
030.
96-0
.18
-0.0
8-0
.26
50
Loui
siana
1.15
1.14
1.14
1.16
1.09
-0.0
1-0
.05
-0.0
629
Mai
ne1.
261.
291.
231.
211.
43-0
.04
0.20
0.16
4
Mar
ylan
d0.
810.
790.
830.
860.
790.
02-0
.04
-0.0
217
Mas
sach
uset
ts0.
470.
550.
570.
540.
510.
10-0
.06
0.04
12
Michi
gan
0.82
0.96
0.80
0.78
0.68
-0.0
2-0
.12
-0.1
446
Min
neso
ta0.
850.
940.
890.
830.
820.
03-0
.07
-0.0
424
Miss
issip
pi1.
000.
971.
010.
980.
950.
01-0
.06
-0.0
525
Miss
ouri
0.89
0.88
0.84
0.83
0.82
-0.0
6-0
.02
-0.0
836
Mon
tana
1.89
1.95
1.95
1.78
1.67
0.06
-0.2
8-0
.22
48
Neb
rask
a1.
010.
940.
980.
970.
90-0
.03
-0.0
8-0
.11
43
Nev
ada
0.81
0.91
0.94
0.85
0.78
0.13
-0.1
6-0
.03
20
New
Ham
pshi
re0.
900.
930.
930.
820.
790.
03-0
.14
-0.1
142
New
Jersey
0.94
0.98
1.00
1.05
1.02
0.06
0.02
0.08
9
New
Mex
ico
0.85
0.90
1.01
0.99
1.07
0.16
0.06
0.22
2
New
Yor
k0.
760.
880.
941.
001.
020.
170.
090.
261
Nor
th C
arol
ina
0.97
0.98
0.92
0.94
0.90
-0.0
5-0
.03
-0.0
837
Nor
th D
akot
a0.
910.
920.
880.
830.
83-0
.02
-0.0
5-0
.08
35
Ohi
o1.
191.
191.
141.
070.
98-0
.06
-0.1
6-0
.22
47
Okl
ahom
a1.
361.
491.
661.
551.
520.
30-0
.13
0.16
3
Ore
gon
1.00
1.10
1.05
1.00
0.93
0.06
-0.1
2-0
.06
31
Penn
sylv
ania
1.19
1.22
1.20
1.15
1.11
0.01
-0.0
9-0
.08
39
Rho
de Is
land
0.82
0.86
0.84
0.86
0.88
0.02
0.04
0.06
11
Sout
h C
arol
ina
1.44
1.47
1.45
1.37
1.36
0.01
-0.0
9-0
.07
32
Sout
h D
akot
a0.
900.
760.
800.
690.
68-0
.10
-0.1
2-0
.23
49
Tenn
esse
e0.
770.
770.
790.
760.
740.
02-0
.05
-0.0
423
Texa
s0.
440.
480.
390.
400.
40-0
.04
0.01
-0.0
321
Uta
h0.
720.
710.
640.
610.
61-0
.08
-0.0
3-0
.11
41
Ver
mon
t1.
151.
331.
251.
221.
250.
090.
000.
10
7
Virgi
nia
0.60
0.56
0.50
0.55
0.54
-0.1
00.
04-0
.06
28
Was
hing
ton
1.69
1.82
1.80
1.72
1.63
0.12
-0.1
7-0
.05
27
Wes
t Virgi
nia
2.11
2.26
2.20
2.06
1.81
0.08
-0.3
8-0
.30
51
Wisc
onsin
1.11
1.13
1.07
1.05
1.04
-0.0
5-0
.03
-0.0
834
Wyo
min
g1.
211.
311.
411.
421.
360.
20-0
.05
0.15
5
Tota
l Non
-Fed
eral
$0.9
6$1
.00
$0.9
8$0
.98
$0.9
50.
02-0
.02
-0.0
1
Fede
ral E
mpl
oyee
s1.
461.
441.
391.
431.
45-0
.07
0.06
-0.0
1
Tota
l$0
.99
$1.0
3$1
.00
$1.0
1$0
.98
$0.0
2$-
0.02
$-0.
01
Notes:F
eder
al to
tal i
nclu
des o
nly
wor
kers cov
ered
und
er F
eder
al E
mpl
oyee
s' C
ompe
nsat
ion
Act
.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
.
Employer Costs forWorkers’ Compensation Methods for Estimating EmployerCosts For employers who purchase insurance from privatecarriers or state funds, the cost of workers’ compen-sation in any year equals the sum of premiums paidin the year plus benefit payments made underdeductible provisions. The growing use of largedeductible policies complicates the measurement ofemployer costs. Our insurance industry data sources(A.M. Best) do not provide information ondeductibles, and many states are unable to providedata on deductibles for the Academy’s survey.Consequently, costs associated with deductibles mustbe estimated for most states.
For self-insured employers, workers’ compensationcosts include benefit payments made during the cal-endar year, and administrative costs with providingthose benefits. Administrative costs include the directcosts of managing claims, as well as expenses for liti-gation and cost containment, taxes, licenses, andfees. Self-insured employers generally do not recordadministrative costs for workers’ compensation sepa-rately from the costs of administering otheremployee benefit programs, so these costs must beestimated. We assume administrative costs for self-insured employers are the same proportion ofbenefits paid as administrative costs reported by pri-vate insurers to the National Association ofInsurance Commissioners (NAIC 2012). (For moreinformation on estimating costs for self-insuredemployers, refer to Appendix C online at theAcademy website www.NASI.org).
For the federal employee workers’ compensation pro-gram, employer costs are benefits paid plusadministrative costs, as reported by the Departmentof Labor (U.S. DOL 2014).
This year, for the first time, we have included esti-mates of assessments for special funds, second injuryfunds, and guarantee funds in the national estimatesof employer costs in Table 13 and the estimates ofemployer costs of workers’ compensation in each
state in Table 14. The estimated costs of assessmentsare based on assessment rates applied to premiums orlosses (benefits paid). Tables reporting employer costshave been updated to include special/secondinjury/guarantee fund costs from 1996 onward. This methodological refinement increased our estimate of total employer costs by 0.4 percent in2012 and by less than one percent almost every yearsince 1996.
National Estimates of EmployerCosts Trends in Employer Costs. Table 13 shows employercosts for workers’ compensation by type of insurerfor 1992 through 2012. In 2012, employer costswere $83.2 billion, an increase of 6.9 percent from$77.8 billion in 2011. Costs for employers insuredthrough private carriers were $50.7 billion (60.9% oftotal costs); costs for employers insured through statefunds were $10.5 billion (12.6%); costs for self-insured employers were $17.5 billion (21.0%); andcosts to the federal government were $4.5 billion(5.4%).22
In recent years, the share of total workers’ compensa-tion costs paid by different sources has remainedfairly stable at around 60 percent from privatelyinsured employers, 20 percent from self-insuredemployers, slightly less than 15 percent from statefunds, and 5 percent from the federal government.
Benefits paid relative to employer costs. The ratio oftotal medical and cash benefits for injured workersrelative to total employer costs reflects three factors:1) the extent to which employers’ payments to theworkers’ compensation system go to injured workersas opposed to administrative costs and insurer prof-its; 2) the time lag between premiums collected vs.
32 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Employer costs for workers’ compensation in 2012 were $83.2 billion, an increase of 6.9% from 2011.
22 The share of employer costs allocated to special funds, second injury funds, and guarantee funds is less than one-half percent. Thecosts for special funds are included in the private carrier, self-insured and state fund costs, according to the payee.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 33
Table 13Workers' Compensation Employer Costs by Type of Insurer, 1992-2012
Total % Private Carriersa State Fundsa Self-Insurancea Federalb
Year (millions) Change (millions) % of total (millions) % of total (millions) % of total (millions) % of total
1992 $57,395 3.9 $34,539 60.2 $9,608 16.7 $10,794 18.8 $2,454 4.3
1993 60,819 6.0 35,596 58.5 10,902 17.9 11,791 19.4 2,530 4.2
1994 60,517 -0.5 33,997 56.2 11,235 18.6 12,795 21.1 2,490 4.1
1995 57,089 -5.7 31,554 55.3 10,512 18.4 12,467 21.8 2,556 4.5
1996 53,898 -5.6 31,081 57.7 8,480 15.7 11,736 21.8 2,601 4.8
1997 54,365 0.9 30,594 56.3 8,268 15.2 12,145 22.3 3,358 6.2
1998 55,028 1.2 31,446 57.1 8,130 14.8 11,981 21.8 3,471 6.3
1999 56,392 2.5 33,740 59.8 7,577 13.4 11,580 20.5 3,496 6.2
2000 60,681 7.6 36,038 59.4 8,934 14.7 12,089 19.9 3,620 6.0
2001 67,387 11.1 38,110 56.6 11,778 17.5 13,721 20.4 3,778 5.6
2002 74,114 10.0 41,600 56.1 14,794 20.0 13,822 18.6 3,898 5.3
2003 82,294 11.0 45,493 55.3 17,820 21.7 15,011 18.2 3,970 4.8
2004 86,114 4.6 47,601 55.3 19,103 22.2 15,337 17.8 4,073 4.7
2005 89,838 4.3 50,972 56.7 18,225 20.3 16,545 18.4 4,096 4.6
2006 87,493 -2.6 51,648 59.0 15,729 18.0 15,979 18.3 4,138 4.7
2007 86,537 -1.1 52,291 60.4 13,898 16.1 16,112 18.6 4,236 4.9
2008 80,602 -6.9 47,338 58.7 12,244 15.2 16,680 20.7 4,341 5.4
2009 73,921 -8.3 42,965 58.1 10,640 14.4 16,252 22.0 4,065 5.5
2010 72,493 -1.9 42,289 58.3 9,797 13.5 16,178 22.3 4,228 5.8
2011 77,822 7.4 46,205 59.4 9,900 12.7 17,289 22.2 4,427 5.7
2012 83,177 6.9 50,692 60.9 10,510 12.6 17,468 21.0 4,507 5.4
Notes:a. The Second Injury and Special Funds costs included this year, uses assessment rates based on premiums and losses to estimate special
fund costs. These costs are included in the private carrier, state fund and self-insured costs. These costs are available from 1996 onwards.b. Federal costs include costs to the Federal government under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act, and employer costs associated
with the Federal Black Lung Disability Trust fund. In years before 1997, Federal costs also include the part of the Black Lung programfinanced by Federal funds. In 1997–2012 Federal costs include employer costs associated with the Longshore and Harbor Workers'Compensation Act. See Appendix B for more information about federal programs.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates of costs for private carriers and state funds are based on information from A.M.Best and direct contact with state agencies. Costs for federal programs are from the Department of Labor and the Social Security Admin-istration. Self-insured administrative costs are based on information from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
34 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 14
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Employ
er C
osts
Per $1
00 of C
overed
Wag
es by State
2008
–201
2
Dol
lar Am
ount
Cha
nge
Ran
king
200
8-20
12Tw
o-Ye
ar C
hang
e
Five
-Yea
r C
hang
e (la
rges
t to
smallest
Stat
e20
0820
0920
1020
1120
1220
08-2
010
2010
-201
220
08-2
012
incr
ease
in d
ollars)
Alaba
ma
$1.3
0$1
.25
$1.2
1$1
.18
$1.1
9-0
.09
-0.0
2-$
0.11
25
Alask
a2.
902.
602.
382.
452.
74-0
.52
0.36
-0.1
632
Arizo
na0.
980.
870.
840.
840.
89-0
.14
0.06
-0.0
924
Ark
ansa
s0.
960.
880.
830.
800.
80-0
.13
-0.0
3-0
.16
31
Califo
rnia
1.62
1.60
1.61
1.76
1.85
-0.0
10.
240.
233
Col
orad
o1.
191.
050.
940.
870.
95-0
.25
0.01
-0.2
443
Con
nect
icut
1.08
1.04
0.99
1.10
1.15
-0.0
90.
160.
078
Delaw
are
1.59
1.29
1.17
1.20
1.24
-0.4
20.
07-0
.35
46
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
0.55
0.57
0.53
0.52
0.48
-0.0
2-0
.05
-0.0
821
Flor
ida
1.47
1.29
1.21
1.24
1.27
-0.2
60.
07-0
.19
38
Geo
rgia
1.32
1.16
1.13
1.13
1.16
-0.1
90.
03-0
.16
33
Haw
aii
1.65
1.44
1.41
1.45
1.43
-0.2
40.
02-0
.22
42
Idah
o1.
711.
591.
511.
581.
63-0
.21
0.12
-0.0
823
Illin
ois
1.44
1.44
1.37
1.39
1.34
-0.0
7-0
.03
-0.1
126
Indi
ana
0.84
0.79
0.77
0.83
0.86
-0.0
80.
090.
0110
Iow
a1.
501.
471.
441.
551.
64-0
.06
0.20
0.14
5
Kan
sas
1.30
1.26
1.22
1.25
1.25
-0.0
80.
03-0
.04
14
Ken
tuck
y1.
531.
461.
241.
291.
16-0
.29
-0.0
8-0
.37
48
Loui
siana
1.80
1.65
1.57
1.58
1.61
-0.2
30.
04-0
.19
37
Mai
ne1.
681.
571.
481.
561.
48-0
.21
0.00
-0.2
140
Mar
ylan
d1.
150.
971.
041.
051.
07-0
.11
0.03
-0.0
822
Mas
sach
uset
ts0.
640.
690.
730.
750.
760.
100.
030.
126
Michi
gan
1.05
1.16
0.98
1.05
0.99
-0.0
70.
00-0
.06
18
Min
neso
ta1.
101.
091.
021.
041.
07-0
.08
0.05
-0.0
313
Miss
issip
pi1.
541.
441.
321.
341.
36-0
.23
0.04
-0.1
836
Miss
ouri
1.28
1.18
1.08
1.08
1.11
-0.2
00.
03-0
.17
35
Mon
tana
3.22
3.06
2.76
2.54
2.49
-0.4
7-0
.27
-0.7
350
Neb
rask
a1.
491.
391.
321.
341.
37-0
.17
0.05
-0.1
328
Nev
ada
1.25
1.11
1.06
1.03
0.98
-0.1
8-0
.08
-0.2
744
New
Ham
pshi
re1.
321.
271.
251.
181.
28-0
.07
0.02
-0.0
515
New
Jersey
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.31
1.36
-0.1
00.
120.
019
New
Mex
ico
1.40
1.34
1.36
1.36
1.50
-0.0
40.
140.
107
New
Yor
k1.
021.
121.
171.
281.
410.
150.
230.
381
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1.39
1.25
1.14
1.19
1.19
-0.2
40.
05-0
.19
39
Nor
th D
akot
a1.
441.
531.
521.
481.
570.
080.
060.
144
Ohi
o1.
371.
501.
331.
171.
01-0
.04
-0.3
2-0
.36
47
Okl
ahom
a1.
901.
952.
082.
052.
220.
180.
150.
332
Ore
gon
1.30
1.17
1.13
1.16
1.16
-0.1
70.
03-0
.14
29
Penn
sylv
ania
1.57
1.50
1.47
1.48
1.51
-0.1
00.
04-0
.07
19
Rho
de Is
land
1.16
1.07
1.01
1.08
1.10
-0.1
50.
08-0
.07
20
Sout
h C
arol
ina
2.03
1.82
1.78
1.68
1.82
-0.2
60.
04-0
.21
41
Sout
h D
akot
a1.
491.
291.
331.
281.
35-0
.17
0.02
-0.1
530
Tenn
esse
e1.
241.
091.
071.
081.
13-0
.17
0.06
-0.1
127
Texa
s0.
920.
850.
670.
710.
75-0
.24
0.08
-0.1
734
Uta
h1.
241.
040.
860.
840.
94-0
.38
0.08
-0.3
045
Ver
mon
t1.
891.
741.
641.
681.
83-0
.25
0.19
-0.0
617
Virgi
nia
0.83
0.77
0.72
0.74
0.77
-0.1
10.
05-0
.06
16
Was
hing
ton*
1.39
1.32
1.34
1.46
1.39
-0.0
60.
050.
0011
Wes
t Virgi
nia
4.18
3.46
2.89
2.00
1.85
-1.2
9-1
.04
-2.3
351
Wisc
onsin
1.78
1.77
1.65
1.78
1.77
-0.1
30.
12-0
.01
12
Wyo
min
g2.
302.
121.
641.
731.
85-0
.66
0.21
-0.4
549
Tota
l non
-fed
eral
$1.3
2$1
.27
$1.2
2$1
.26
$1.2
9$-
0.11
$0.0
7-$
0.03
*Note:
In W
ashi
ngto
n stat
e bo
th em
ploy
ers a
nd em
ploy
ees c
ontrib
ute to
wor
kers' c
ompe
nsat
ion
prem
ium
s. T
he d
ata re
ported
includ
e on
ly th
e em
ploy
er p
ortio
n. G
ener
ally
stat
es w
ith exc
lusiv
e stat
efu
nds o
pera
te sp
ecia
l fun
ds (o
r th
eir eq
uiva
lent
s) and
their ex
perien
ce is
includ
ed in
the be
nefit
and
cos
ts ent
ries
for th
ose ex
clus
ive stat
e fu
nds.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 35
Table 14
Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsation Employ
er C
osts
Per $1
00 of C
overed
Wag
es by State
2008
–201
2
Dol
lar Am
ount
Cha
nge
Ran
king
200
8-20
12Tw
o-Ye
ar C
hang
e
Five
-Yea
r C
hang
e (la
rges
t to
smallest
Stat
e20
0820
0920
1020
1120
1220
08-2
010
2010
-201
220
08-2
012
incr
ease
in d
ollars)
Alaba
ma
$1.3
0$1
.25
$1.2
1$1
.18
$1.1
9-0
.09
-0.0
2-$
0.11
25
Alask
a2.
902.
602.
382.
452.
74-0
.52
0.36
-0.1
632
Arizo
na0.
980.
870.
840.
840.
89-0
.14
0.06
-0.0
924
Ark
ansa
s0.
960.
880.
830.
800.
80-0
.13
-0.0
3-0
.16
31
Califo
rnia
1.62
1.60
1.61
1.76
1.85
-0.0
10.
240.
233
Col
orad
o1.
191.
050.
940.
870.
95-0
.25
0.01
-0.2
443
Con
nect
icut
1.08
1.04
0.99
1.10
1.15
-0.0
90.
160.
078
Delaw
are
1.59
1.29
1.17
1.20
1.24
-0.4
20.
07-0
.35
46
Dist
rict
of C
olum
bia
0.55
0.57
0.53
0.52
0.48
-0.0
2-0
.05
-0.0
821
Flor
ida
1.47
1.29
1.21
1.24
1.27
-0.2
60.
07-0
.19
38
Geo
rgia
1.32
1.16
1.13
1.13
1.16
-0.1
90.
03-0
.16
33
Haw
aii
1.65
1.44
1.41
1.45
1.43
-0.2
40.
02-0
.22
42
Idah
o1.
711.
591.
511.
581.
63-0
.21
0.12
-0.0
823
Illin
ois
1.44
1.44
1.37
1.39
1.34
-0.0
7-0
.03
-0.1
126
Indi
ana
0.84
0.79
0.77
0.83
0.86
-0.0
80.
090.
0110
Iow
a1.
501.
471.
441.
551.
64-0
.06
0.20
0.14
5
Kan
sas
1.30
1.26
1.22
1.25
1.25
-0.0
80.
03-0
.04
14
Ken
tuck
y1.
531.
461.
241.
291.
16-0
.29
-0.0
8-0
.37
48
Loui
siana
1.80
1.65
1.57
1.58
1.61
-0.2
30.
04-0
.19
37
Mai
ne1.
681.
571.
481.
561.
48-0
.21
0.00
-0.2
140
Mar
ylan
d1.
150.
971.
041.
051.
07-0
.11
0.03
-0.0
822
Mas
sach
uset
ts0.
640.
690.
730.
750.
760.
100.
030.
126
Michi
gan
1.05
1.16
0.98
1.05
0.99
-0.0
70.
00-0
.06
18
Min
neso
ta1.
101.
091.
021.
041.
07-0
.08
0.05
-0.0
313
Miss
issip
pi1.
541.
441.
321.
341.
36-0
.23
0.04
-0.1
836
Miss
ouri
1.28
1.18
1.08
1.08
1.11
-0.2
00.
03-0
.17
35
Mon
tana
3.22
3.06
2.76
2.54
2.49
-0.4
7-0
.27
-0.7
350
Neb
rask
a1.
491.
391.
321.
341.
37-0
.17
0.05
-0.1
328
Nev
ada
1.25
1.11
1.06
1.03
0.98
-0.1
8-0
.08
-0.2
744
New
Ham
pshi
re1.
321.
271.
251.
181.
28-0
.07
0.02
-0.0
515
New
Jersey
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.31
1.36
-0.1
00.
120.
019
New
Mex
ico
1.40
1.34
1.36
1.36
1.50
-0.0
40.
140.
107
New
Yor
k1.
021.
121.
171.
281.
410.
150.
230.
381
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1.39
1.25
1.14
1.19
1.19
-0.2
40.
05-0
.19
39
Nor
th D
akot
a1.
441.
531.
521.
481.
570.
080.
060.
144
Ohi
o1.
371.
501.
331.
171.
01-0
.04
-0.3
2-0
.36
47
Okl
ahom
a1.
901.
952.
082.
052.
220.
180.
150.
332
Ore
gon
1.30
1.17
1.13
1.16
1.16
-0.1
70.
03-0
.14
29
Penn
sylv
ania
1.57
1.50
1.47
1.48
1.51
-0.1
00.
04-0
.07
19
Rho
de Is
land
1.16
1.07
1.01
1.08
1.10
-0.1
50.
08-0
.07
20
Sout
h C
arol
ina
2.03
1.82
1.78
1.68
1.82
-0.2
60.
04-0
.21
41
Sout
h D
akot
a1.
491.
291.
331.
281.
35-0
.17
0.02
-0.1
530
Tenn
esse
e1.
241.
091.
071.
081.
13-0
.17
0.06
-0.1
127
Texa
s0.
920.
850.
670.
710.
75-0
.24
0.08
-0.1
734
Uta
h1.
241.
040.
860.
840.
94-0
.38
0.08
-0.3
045
Ver
mon
t1.
891.
741.
641.
681.
83-0
.25
0.19
-0.0
617
Virgi
nia
0.83
0.77
0.72
0.74
0.77
-0.1
10.
05-0
.06
16
Was
hing
ton*
1.39
1.32
1.34
1.46
1.39
-0.0
60.
050.
0011
Wes
t Virgi
nia
4.18
3.46
2.89
2.00
1.85
-1.2
9-1
.04
-2.3
351
Wisc
onsin
1.78
1.77
1.65
1.78
1.77
-0.1
30.
12-0
.01
12
Wyo
min
g2.
302.
121.
641.
731.
85-0
.66
0.21
-0.4
549
Tota
l non
-fed
eral
$1.3
2$1
.27
$1.2
2$1
.26
$1.2
9$-
0.11
$0.0
7-$
0.03
*Note:
In W
ashi
ngto
n stat
e bo
th em
ploy
ers a
nd em
ploy
ees c
ontrib
ute to
wor
kers' c
ompe
nsat
ion
prem
ium
s. T
he d
ata re
ported
includ
e on
ly th
e em
ploy
er p
ortio
n. G
ener
ally
stat
es w
ith exc
lusiv
e stat
efu
nds o
pera
te sp
ecia
l fun
ds (o
r th
eir eq
uiva
lent
s) and
their ex
perien
ce is
includ
ed in
the be
nefit
and
cos
ts ent
ries
for th
ose ex
clus
ive stat
e fu
nds.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
.
benefits paid; and to some extent 3) the impact ofinsurers’ returns on investments. (For employers covered by private insurers or state funds, the majori-ty of benefits paid in any given year is for injuriesoccurring, and paid for, in prior years).23
Table 16 reports the ratio of benefits paid to employ-er costs since 1992. Relative to the total wages ofcovered workers, employer costs nationally increasedfrom $1.29 to $1.32 per $100 of covered wagesbetween 2011 and 2012. The ratio of benefits paidto employer costs was 0.74 in 2012, down from 0.78in 2011. Over the last two decades the ratio of bene-fits paid to employer costs has varied between 0.63(2006) and 0.82 (1999) (Table 16).
Estimates of Employer Costs by StateTable 14 reports estimates of employer costs forworkers’ compensation per $100 of covered payrollfor each state, for the years from 2008 to 2012.Costs are aggregated across all types of insurancearrangements (excluding federal programs). Between2008 and 2012, employer costs per $100 of coveredpayroll increased in 10 jurisdictions and decreased in41. In the more recent period from 2010 to 2012,however, costs per $100 of covered payroll increasedin 42 jurisdictions and decreased in only 9.
Over the five year period from 2008 to 2012, thegreatest increases in costs occurred in New York($0.38) and Oklahoma ($0.33). The greatestdecreases in costs occurred in West-Virginia (-$2.33)and Montana (-$0.73). The dramatic decrease inemployer costs in West Virginia coincides with theconversion from an exclusive state fund in 2008 to aprivate carrier system after 2009.
Readers are cautioned against using the estimates ofemployer costs by state to make interstate compar-isons. A meaningful comparison of employer costsacross states requires controls for differences in theproportions of employers in different insurance clas-sifications in each state, which is beyond the scope ofthis report. Thus, the state estimates of employer
36 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table 15Workers' Compensation Non-federal Employer Costs Per $100 Covered Wages: NASI vs. Burton (based on BLS data) Estimates, 1996-2012
Costs per $100 of WagesBurton
Year NASI (based on BLS data )
1996 $ 1.58 $ 2.52
1997 1.47 2.44
1998 1.37 2.17
1999 1.31 2.11
2000 1.31 1.90
2001 1.42 1.87
2002 1.57 1.93
2003 1.72 1.93
2004 1.71 2.26
2005 1.70 2.31
2006 1.55 2.21
2007 1.45 2.15
2008 1.32 2.03
2009 1.27 1.92
2010 1.22 1.87
2011 1.26 1.84
2012 1.29 1.79
Notes: Costs are for non-federal employees. The numbers used above are not published by the Bureauof Labor Statistics (BLS) directly but the BLS data areused by Burton (2013) to estimate employer cost datawhich are comaprable to NASI estimates of employercost.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates and Burton 2013.
23 For employers insured through the private market or state funds, employer costs are largely determined by premiums paid in theyear. Premiums paid by employers do not necessarily match benefits received by workers in a given year because premiums in a givencalendar year must pay for all compensable consequences of injuries that occur during the year, including benefits paid in futureyears. Premiums can also be influenced by insurers’ past and anticipated investment returns on reserves they set aside to cover futureliabilities.
costs reported here are not informative for makingplant location decisions, for determining adequacy ofworkers’ compensation benefits, or for formulatinglegislative reforms.
In addition, the cost data reported here do not cap-ture recent changes in laws that may have changed
the workers’ compensation market within a state.Cost data for 2012 include a substantial proportionof benefits paid for injuries that occurred in prioryears, when legal regimes and economic conditionsmay have been different. Thus, the data reportedhere may not fully reflect the current reality of theworkers’ compensation costs in a state.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 37
Table 16Workers’ Compensation Benefit/Cost Ratios, 1992–2012
Employer Total Benefits Medical Benefits Cash Benefits BenefitsCosts per per $100 per $100 per $100 per $1
Year $100 Covered Wages Covered Wages Covered Wages Covered Wages Employer Cost
1992 $ 2.13 $ 1.65 $ 0.69 $ 0.96 $ 0.78
1993 2.17 1.53 0.66 0.87 0.71
1994 2.05 1.47 0.58 0.89 0.72
1995 1.83 1.35 0.54 0.81 0.74
1996 1.62 1.26 0.50 0.76 0.78
1997 1.51 1.17 0.48 0.68 0.77
1998 1.42 1.13 0.48 0.65 0.80
1999 1.36 1.12 0.48 0.63 0.82
2000 1.35 1.06 0.47 0.60 0.79
2001 1.46 1.10 0.50 0.60 0.75
2002 1.61 1.13 0.52 0.61 0.71
2003 1.74 1.16 0.55 0.61 0.67
2004 1.74 1.13 0.53 0.61 0.65
2005 1.72 1.09 0.51 0.59 0.64
2006 1.58 0.99 0.47 0.52 0.63
2007 1.48 0.96 0.46 0.50 0.65
2008 1.35 0.99 0.49 0.50 0.73
2009 1.30 1.03 0.50 0.53 0.79
2010 1.25 1.00 0.49 0.51 0.81
2011 1.29 1.01 0.51 0.50 0.78
2012 1.32 0.98 0.49 0.49 0.74
Notes: Benefits are payments in the calendar year to injured workers and to providers of their medical care.Costs are employer expenditures in the calendar year for workers' compensation benefits (including deductibles), insurancepremiums, and administrative costs.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates.
Comparison of NASI Estimates ofEmployer Costs to Other Sources NASI estimates compared to BLS estimates. TheBureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes quarterlyestimates of employer costs for workers’ compensa-tion (and other employee benefits) in Employer Costsfor Employee Compensation (U.S.DOL 2013a).24
BLS does not publish an estimate of employer costsrelative to payroll. Burton (2013) uses the BLS datato calculate employer costs for workers’ compensa-tion per $100 of payroll, and compares it withNASI’s estimates.
Table 15 and Figure 5 compare NASI and Burton(2013) estimates for employer costs for workers’compensation per $100 of covered payroll for non-federal employees over the period 1996-2012. In2012, the Burton estimate of employer costs is $1.79per $100 of covered payroll, compared to NASI esti-mate of $1.29. Over the 17-year period, Burton’sestimates using BLS data have been consistentlyhigher than NASI estimates, although the timetrends generally move in the same direction.
Methodological differences between the Burton andNASI studies may well account for the differences inestimates of employer costs. Burton uses BLS datathat are based on a representative survey of establish-ments, while NASI estimates are based on nationalaggregate data. The BLS estimates are designed tocompare, for its representative sample of establishments,the average costs of wages, salaries, and benefits, peremployee hour worked. Estimates are provided fortotal compensation and various types of benefitsincluding workers’ compensation. This is the uniquepurpose and value of the BLS study.
The purpose of NASI’s study is quite different.NASI seeks to estimate national aggregates of work-ers’ compensation benefits paid to workers and costsborne by employers. Our estimates of $61.9 billion
in benefits paid to workers and $83.2 billion inworkers’ compensation costs borne by employers in2012 are the only data that answer questions aboutaggregate benefits and spending. BLS does not useits survey data to estimate aggregate employer costsfor the nation.
There are potential limitations in both the Burtonand NASI methods of estimating employer costs as ashare of payroll. Burton may over-estimate costsbecause: 1) The sample of employers BLS surveysmay not be representative of all U.S. employers, and2) BLS applies premium rates to 100 percent of covered payrolls in calculating a weighted average ofemployer costs, but insurers exclude some payroll(e.g. overtime pay) when calculating employer premiums.
NASI may under-estimate employer costs per $100 ofcovered payroll because its methods may (1) overesti-mate covered payrolls and (2) under-estimate theadministrative costs of workers’ compensation forself-insured employers, and employers managinghigh deductible policies.25 Burton and NASI usevery different methods to arrive at estimates ofemployer costs per $100 of covered payroll, so wewould not expect the two measures to produce iden-tical results.
NASI estimates compared to Oregon Rate Ranking esti-mates. The Oregon Workers’ Compensation RateRanking study also produces estimates of employercosts. The study (Oregon Department of Consumerand Business Services 2013), conducted on a bienni-al basis by the State of Oregon, Department ofConsumer & Business Services, is designed toaddress the question: How would an employer’sworkers’ compensation rate be affected by moving toanother state?
The Oregon estimates are comparisons of workers’compensation premium rates for a standardized set
38 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
24 The BLS publication contains information on the amounts employers pay for wages and salaries, and employee benefits, includingworkers’ compensation. The most recent BLS data used for Table 15 are based on a sample of 9,300 establishments in private indus-try and 1,400 establishments in state and local governments (U.S. DOL 2013a). The BLS data on employer costs in the private sec-tor are available by industry, occupational group, establishment size, bargaining status, and for four census regions and nine censusdivisions, but are not available for individual states. The BLS methodology and the procedure used to calculate workers’ compensa-tion benefits per $100 of payroll are discussed in Burton (2013).
25 NASI assumes that administrative costs for self-insured employers and employers managing high-deductible policies are the sameproportion of total costs as the administrative costs of private insurers. In fact, the administrative costs for employers may be rela-tively larger as a proportion of benefits paid because insurers benefit from economies of scale.
of insurance classifications. The standardization factors out differences in hazard mix (riskiness ofindustries) across states to provide a measure of inter-state differences in costs for employers withcomparable risk distributions. The Oregon studybases its estimates on premium rates, which are avail-able at the start of an applicable period, rather thancosts, which may not be fully reported until severalyears after. Some elements that apply only to individ-ual employers, but affect employer costs in aggregatereporting, are not included in the Oregon study.
A more complete accounting of cost data is reflectedin NASI data, which also includes estimates of self-insurer costs. Average employer costs derived fromNASI data are influenced in part by the different risk
profile presented by each state’s economy, as well asvariations in self-insurance across states. UnlikeNASI data series, the Oregon study reports rates fora constant set of risk classifications across states.
Results of the Oregon study should not be comparedto the estimates of employer costs reported here.The Oregon approach is based on premiumsemployers would currently pay for insurance cover-age in different states; NASI data reflect the currentcosts of workers’ compensation for all employers in astate, including those who self-insure. It should notbe surprising that the results of these disparateapproaches do not agree, because the estimates aredesigned to measure different concepts for differentpurposes.26
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 39
Figure 5Non-federal Workers' Compensation Costs Per $100 of Payroll 1996-2012Comparison of NASI and Burton (based on BLS data) Estimates
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
20122011201020092008200720062005200420032002200120001999199819971996
2.522.44
2.172.11
1.90 1.871.93 1.93
2.26 2.312.21
2.031.92
1.87 1.84
2.15
1.471.37
1.31 1.311.42
1.57
1.72 1.71
1.55
1.27 1.221.29
1.451.58
1.70
1.32Non-Federal Employer Costs per $100 of Covered Payroll
(NASI)
Non-Federal Employer Costs per $100 of Covered Payroll(Burton)
1.79
1.26
Note:The numbers used above are not published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics(BLS) directly but the BLS data are used byBurton (2013) to estimate employer cost data which are comaprable to NASI estimates of employer cost.
Source: National Academy of Social Insurance estimates and Burton 2013.
26 Burton (2013) and Manley (2013) provide more extended discussions of the differences between NASI and Oregon measures of employers’ costs.
40 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Incidence of Work Related Injuries and Illnesses Information on the incidence of work related injuriesand illnesses in any given year come from twosources: 1) The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) col-lects information on work related fatal injuries fromthe Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries, and infor-mation on nonfatal work related injuries or illnessesfrom a sample survey of employers (Survey ofOccupational Injuries and Illnesses). 2) The NationalCouncil on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) hasinformation on the number of workers’ compensa-tion claims paid by private carriers and competitivestate funds in 37 states (NCCI 2013b).
Estimates from BLS Data Fatalities. According to the BLS, a total of 4,628fatal work related injuries occurred in 2012, aboutone percent fewer than the number reported in 2011(4,693) (Table 17). Among private industry employ-ers, there were 4,175 fatalities, down from 4,188 in2011. Over the last two decades the annual numberof work related fatalities has declined by more than25 percent.
The leading cause of work related fatalities in 2012was transportation incidents, accounting for 42 per-cent of the total. Other leading causes of fatalitieswere homicides and suicides (16% of the total), con-tact with objects and equipment (16%), and falls,slips and trips (15%) (U.S. DOL 2013c).
Nonfatal Injuries and Illnesses. The BLS reports atotal of 3.0 million nonfatal workplace injuries andillnesses in private industry workplaces in 2012,unchanged from 2011 (Table 18) (U.S. DOL,
2013e). A total of 0.9 million work relatedinjuries/illnesses involved more than one day’s workabsence. The incidence of all reported nonfatal occu-pational injuries and illnesses declined steadily after
Table 17Fatal Occupational Injuries – All and Private Industry, 1992–2012
Number of FatalitiesYear All Industry Private Industry
1992 6,217 5,497
1993 6,331 5,643
1994 6,632 5,959
1995 6,275 5,495
1996 6,202 5,597
1997 6,238 5,616
1998 6,055 5,457
1999 6,054 5,488
2000 5,920 5,347
2001 8,801 7,545
September 11 events 2,264
Other 5,915
2002 5,534 4,978
2003 5,575 5,043
2004 5,764 5,229
2005 5,734 5,214
2006 5,840 5,320
2007 5,657 5,112
2008 5,214 4,670
2009 4,551 4,090
2010 4,690 4,206
2011 4,693 4,188
2012 4,628 4,175
Source: U.S. Department of Labor 2013c.
Over the last two decades the annualnumber of fatal work-related injuries
has declined by more than 25 percent, and the annual number ofnonfatal work related injuries has declined by more than 55 percent.
1992, down to 3.4 cases per 100 full-time workers(or 3.4 percent) in 2012. The incidence of workrelated injuries or illnesses involving lost work timedeclined about 0.1 percentage points per year from1992 to 2007. After 2007 it has declined more slow-ly, down to 1.0 percent in 2012 (Table 18 andFigure 6).
Some of the most common nonfatal workplaceinjuries and illnesses that resulted in days away fromwork reported in 2012 were: sprains and strains(37.6% of all cases); soreness or pain, including backpain (14.5%); cuts, lacerations and punctures(9.4%); bruises and contusions (8.2%); and fractures
(7.9%). Together these injuries accounted for nearly78 percent of all reported nonfatal work relatedinjuries in 2012 (U.S. DOL 2013d).
Injuries Involving Lost Work Time or Work RestrictionsFigure 6 (and Table 18) also show trends in the inci-dence rates of work related injuries and illnessesamong private industry employers, for cases involv-ing work absences or job transfers/restrictions (U.S.DOL 2013e). The data show rates per 100 full-timeequivalent employment from 1992 to 2012. (Thebreak in the trend lines in 2002 represents a changein OSHA recordkeeping requirements in that year,
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 41
Figure 6Private Industry Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Incidence Rates, 1992–2012
Note:The break in the graph indicates that the data for 2002 and beyond are not strictly comparable to prior year data dueto changes in OSHA recordkeeping requirements. * Cases involving days away from work are cases requiring at least one day away from work with or without days of job
transfer or restriction.** Job transfer or restriction cases occur when, as a result of a work-related injury or illness, an employer or health care pro-
fessional keeps, or recommends keeping an employee from doing the routine functions of his or her job or from workingthe full workday that the employee would have been scheduled to work before the injury or illness occurred.
Source: U.S. DOL 2013e.
Cases with days away from work*
Cases with job transfer or restriction* *
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
201220112010200920082007200620052004200320022001200019991998199719961995199419931992
42 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
indicating that the data before and after 2002 maynot be strictly comparable).
The incidence of injuries or illnesses involving daysaway from work declined steadily from 1992 (whenthe rate was 3.0 percent) to 2012 (when the rate was1.0 percent). The incidence of cases resulting in job
transfers or work restrictions increased from 1992(0.9%) to 1996 (1.1%), leveled off until 2002(1.2%), and then decreased slowly through 2012(0.7%). Some of the changes in the 1990’s, when theincidence of injuries involving work absence wasdecreasing while the incidence of transfers/ workrestrictions was increasing, may reflect an increasing
Table 18Non-Fatal Occupational Injuries and Illnesses Among Private Industry Employers, 1992-2012
Number of Cases Incidence Rate (millions) (per 100 full-time workers)
Cases with Cases with Job Cases with Cases with JobAll Any Days Away Transfer or All Any Days Away Transfer or
Year Cases from Work Restriction Cases from Work Restriction
1992 6.8 2.3 0.6 8.9 3.0 0.9
1993 6.7 2.3 0.7 8.5 2.9 0.9
1994 6.8 2.2 0.8 8.4 2.8 1.0
1995 6.6 2.0 0.9 8.1 2.5 1.1
1996 6.2 1.9 1.0 7.4 2.2 1.1
1997 6.1 1.8 1.0 7.1 2.1 1.2
1998 5.9 1.7 1.1 6.7 2.0 1.2
1999 5.7 1.7 1.0 6.3 1.9 1.2
2000 5.7 1.7 1.1 6.1 1.8 1.2
2001 5.2 1.5 1.0 5.7 1.7 1.1
2002 4.7 1.4 1.1 5.3 1.6 1.2
2003 4.4 1.3 1.0 5.0 1.5 1.1
2004 4.3 1.3 1.0 4.8 1.4 1.1
2005 4.2 1.2 1.0 4.6 1.4 1.0
2006 4.1 1.2 0.9 4.4 1.3 1.0
2007 4.0 1.2 0.9 4.2 1.2 0.9
2008 3.7 1.1 0.8 3.9 1.1 0.9
2009 3.3 1.0 0.7 3.6 1.1 0.8
2010 3.1 0.9 0.7 3.5 1.1 0.8
2011 3.0 0.9 0.6 3.5 1.1 0.7
2012 3.0 0.9 0.6 3.4 1.0 0.7
Note: Data for 2002 and beyond are not strictly comparable to data from prior years because of changes in OSHA record-keepingrequirements.
Source: U.S. DOL 2013e.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 43
focus on returning injured workers to work, even ifthey were not yet able to perform all the requiredfunctions of their pre-injury jobs.
Estimates from NCCINCCI reports the frequency of workers’ compensa-tion claims for insured employers and state funds in37 jurisdictions (Table 19). The data, replicated inTable 19 for years 1992-2009 (the most recent yearreported), show declining trends in the incidence ofclaims similar to the declining trends in incidence ofwork related injuries reported by the BLS.
According to NCCI data, the number of workers’compensation claims from insured employers declinedby 58.2 percent between 1992 and 2009; (comparedto the BLS estimate of a 51.5 percent decrease ininjuries for all employers). The NCCI data indicatethe number of temporary total disability claims fromprivate industry declined by 60.2 percent (comparedto the BLS estimate of a 56.0 percent decline ininjuries involving days away from work for all employ-ers) (Table 18).
Table 19Number of Workers' Compensation Claims Per 100,000 Insured Workers: Private Carriers in 37 Jurisdictions, 1992-2009
Total (including Policy Period Temporary Total Permanent Partial medical only)
1992 1,358 694 8,504
1993 1,331 644 8,279
1994 1,300 565 7,875
1995 1,217 459 7,377
1996 1,124 419 6,837
1997 1,070 414 6,725
1998 977 452 6,474
1999 927 461 6,446
2000 870 437 6,003
2001 799 423 5,510
2002 770 422 5,239
2003 725 423 4,901
2004 702 385 4,728
2005 675 377 4,576
2006 651 369 4,386
2007 608 357 4,104
2008 550 323 3,633
2009 541 331 3,555
Percent decline, 1992–2009 -60.2 -52.3 -58.2
Source: NCCI 1996-2013, Exhibit XII, Annual Statistical Bulletin.
Some caution is warranted with regard to these data.There is research suggesting that underreporting ofoccupational injuries and illnesses is common inworkers’ compensation data (see Azaroff et al. (2002)and Spieler and Burton (2012) for review of thesestudies). There are many reasons for underreportingand overreporting on the part of workers, employers,and/or medical providers.
Workers may not report injuries because: they donot know an injury is covered by workers’ compensa-tion; they believe filing for benefits is too timeconsuming, difficult or stressful (Strunin and Boden2004; Fricker 1997): they feel the injury is some-thing to be expected as part of their job (Galizzi etal. 2010); or they fear employer retaliation (Pranskyet al. 1999). Employers may not report injuriesbecause: the claim is in dispute; their recordkeepingis faulty; they want to maintain a superior safetyrecord, or they are unaware an injury is covered byworkers’ compensation. Medical providers may failto report injuries and illnesses that take time todevelop, such as carpal tunnel syndrome, noiseinduced hearing loss and lung diseases like silicosis,because the worker and provider are unaware of theworkplace connection.27
There are also reasons to suspect some over reportingof injuries/illnesses as work related. The 100% cover-age of medical costs and indemnity costs underworkers’ compensation creates incentives for workersto report injuries/ illnesses as work related when theetiology may be uncertain. Workers may also overreport injuries in anticipation of job loss or to bene-fit from higher disability benefits.
In addition to reporting issues, the data on incidencerates for the BLS and workers’ compensation datamay differ because of different definitions of whatconstitutes a case. A worker may, for example,receive cash benefits to compensate for lost wages,thus appearing in a workers’ compensation database,but not have sufficient days away from work to beclassified as a temporary disability case in the OSHAlog (Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry2005).
Addendum Other Disability Benefit Programs The primary purpose of this report is to describetrends in workers’ compensation benefits, costs, andcoverage with respect to two main stakeholdergroups: the injured workers who receive benefits andthe employers who pay for them. However, workers’compensation benefits can be supplemented by othersources of income for injured workers. This adden-dum describes the major disability support programsthat interact with workers’ compensation, namely:temporary sick leave; short and long-term disabilitybenefits; retirement benefits; Social SecurityDisability Insurance; and Medicare.
Sick leave. Sick leave is a common form of wagereplacement for short-term absences from work dueto illnesses or injuries not related to work. About 61percent of all private sector employees had access tosome type of paid sick leave in 2012, providedthrough their employer or a private insurance plan(U.S. DOL 2013b). Sick leave typically pays 100percent of wages for a number of days depending onthe worker’s job tenure and hours worked. Sick leavecan be used to cover wage losses for the first three toseven days of a workers’ compensation disabilityclaim, when these days are not covered by statute.
Paid sick leave is far more common than workers’compensation temporary disability benefits; it isadministratively easier for the worker to access andthe employer to administer. For employers, theworkers’ compensation option has reporting require-ments and negative impacts on premium rates thatare not present in paid sick leave. For workers, thedecision to report and pursue a workers’ compensa-tion claim carries a minimum three-day wagepenalty, and a lower wage replacement rate (67% vs.100%). All these factors influence worker andemployer decisions regarding whether to cover shortduration work-related time-losses via sick leave orworkers’ compensation.
Short-term disability benefits. Five states (California,Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island)have mandatory state administered insurance that
44 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
27 Studies have typically shown much less reporting of these types of conditions as work related than is suggested by their prevalence inmedical data (Stanbury et al. 1995; Biddle et al. 1998; Morse et al. 1998; Milton et al. 1998, U.S. DOL 2008).
provide short to medium term disability insurance.Some private employers offer short-term disabilityinsurance to their workers even in states where suchinsurance is not required. About 40 percent of pri-vate sector employees were covered by short-termdisability insurance in 2012 (U.S. DOL 2013b).Typically, workers must have a specified amount ofpast employment or earnings to qualify for benefitsand benefits replace about half of the worker’s priorearnings. In general, workers receiving workers’ com-pensation benefits are not eligible for these types ofshort-term disability benefits.
There are also short term disability plans that coverperiods that are longer than the sick leave providedas a function of payroll but shorter than required toqualify for long-term disability benefits. There arealso state and municipal short-term disability benefitprograms for public employees (particularly forpolice and firefighters) that coordinate with workers’compensation programs or in some cases are an alter-native to workers’ compensation.
Long-term disability benefits. Long-term disabilityinsurance financed, at least in part, by employerscovers about 33 percent of private sector employees.Such coverage is most common among relativelyhigh paying management, professional, and relatedoccupations. About 59 percent of workers in man-agement and professional related occupations werecovered by long-term disability plans as of March2013, compared to 33 percent of workers in salesand office occupations, and 10 percent of workers inservice occupations (U.S. DOL 2013b). Long-termdisability insurance is also sold in individual policies,typically to high earning professionals. Such individ-ual policies are not included in these coveragestatistics.
Long-term disability benefits are usually paid after awaiting period of three to six months, or after short-term disability benefits end. Long-term disabilityinsurance is generally designed to replace 60 percentof earnings, although replacement rates of 50 or 66percent are also common. Almost all long-term dis-ability insurance is coordinated with Social Securitydisability insurance and workers’ compensation. Thatis, private long-term disability benefits are reduceddollar for dollar by the amount of social security orworkers’ compensation benefits received. If SocialSecurity benefits replace 40 percent of a worker’s
prior earnings, for example, the long-term disabilitybenefit would pay the balance to achieve a 60 per-cent wage replacement.
Retirement benefits. Retirement benefits may also beavailable to workers who become disabled because ofa work related injury or illness. Most defined benefitpension plans have some disability provision; benefitsmay be available at the time of disability or may con-tinue to accrue until retirement age. Definedcontribution pension plans will often make funds inan employee’s account available without penalty ifthe worker becomes disabled, but these plans do nothave the insurance features of defined benefit pen-sions or disability insurance.
Federal Disability Programs. Social Security DisabilityInsurance (SSDI) and Medicare provide cash andmedical benefits respectively to workers who becomedisabled and unable to work prior to normal retire-ment age. SSDI benefits are available to workerswith disabilities whether or not the disability resultsfrom a work related injury, but the eligibility rulesfor SSDI differ from the rules for workers’ compensation.
Workers are eligible for workers’ compensation bene-fits from their first day of employment, whileeligibility for SSDI requires workers to have substan-tial history of contributions to the Social Securitysystem. Workers’ compensation provides benefits forboth short and long-term disabilities, and for partialas well as total disabilities. Workers’ compensationcash benefits begin after a few days’ work absence,whereas SSDI benefits begin only after a five monthwaiting period. SSDI benefits are paid only to work-ers who have long-term impairments that precludegainful employment in the labor market for whichthe worker is suited by virtue of training or experience.
Medicare pays health care costs for persons whoreceive SSDI, after an additional 24 month waitingperiod (or 29 months after the onset of disability).Medicare covers all medical conditions, includingwork related injuries or illnesses. According to theMedicare Secondary Payer Act, however, if a workerhas both workers’ compensation and Medicare cover-age, workers’ compensation is the primary payer forillnesses and injuries covered under the workers’compensation law. Medicare is the secondary payer
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 45
for medical costs after the primary workers’ compen-sation obligation is met.
In 2012, workers’ compensation benefits paid (cashbenefits plus medical payments) totaled $61.8 bil-lion. SSDI paid $136.9 billion in wage replacementbenefits to disabled persons and their dependentsand Medicare paid $83.6 billion for medical care fordisabled persons under age 65, for a total of $220.5billion. (SSA 2013b; CMS 2013). Thus, aggregateworkers’ compensation benefits were about 28 per-cent of the total amount of Federal benefits (SSDI+Medicare) paid to persons with disabilities.
If a worker becomes eligible for both SSDI andworkers’ compensation cash benefits, one or bothprograms will reduce benefits to avoid making exces-sive payments relative to the worker’s past earnings.The Social Security amendments of 1965 requirethat SSDI benefits be reduced28 (or “offset”) suchthat the combined total of workers’ compensationand SSDI benefits does not exceed 80 percent of theworkers’ prior earnings.29 Some states, however, hadestablished reverse offset laws prior to the 1965 legis-lation, whereby workers’ compensation payments arereduced if the worker receives SSDI. Legislation in1981 eliminated the states’ option to adopt reverseoffset laws, but the 15 states that already had suchlaws in place received exemptions.30
As of December 2012, about 8.8 million disabled-worker beneficiaries and 2.1 million dependentsreceived SSDI benefits (Table 20). About 1.4 millionof these individuals (12.8%) were dual beneficiariesof workers’ compensation or other public disabilityprograms in 2012 or previous years. Of these,121,503 persons (1.1% percent of total beneficiaries)were currently receiving reduced SSDI benefitsbecause of the offset provision.
Benefits Incurred vs. Benefits Paid The Academy’s estimates of workers’ compensationbenefits in this report reflect amounts paid for work-related injuries and illnesses in a calendar yearregardless of when those injuries occurred. This mea-sure of benefits is commonly used in reporting dataon social insurance programs, private employee bene-fits, and other income security programs.
A different measure, accident year incurred losses (oraccident year incurred benefits) is the commonreporting measure for private workers’ compensationinsurers and some state funds. Incurred benefits mea-sures the benefits associated with injuries that occurin a particular year, regardless of whether the benefitsare paid in that year or future years. The two mea-sures, calendar year benefits paid and accident yearbenefits incurred, reveal important, but different,information.31
For the purpose of setting insurance premiums, it isvital to estimate the incurred benefits the premiumsare required to cover. When an employer purchasesworkers’ compensation insurance for a particularperiod, the premiums must cover current and futureliabilities for all injuries that occur during the period.NCCI and state rating bureaus use accident year (orpolicy year) incurred benefits in determining theirrates.
Benefits incurred are also more appropriate for policypurposes than benefits paid. For example, if a statelowers benefits or tightens compensability rules fornew injuries as of a given date, benefits would beexpected to decline in the future. Similarly, if a stateraises benefits or expands the range of compensableinjuries, benefits would be expected to increase inthe future. The policy change will show up immedi-ately in estimates of incurred benefits, but will be
46 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
28 The portion of workers’ compensation benefits that offset (reduce) SSDI benefits are subject to federal income tax (IRC section86(d)(3)).
29 The cap remains at 80 percent of the worker’s average earnings before disability, except that, in the relatively few cases when SocialSecurity disability benefits for the worker and dependents exceed 80 percent of prior earnings, the benefits are not reduced below theSocial Security amount. This cap also applies to coordination between SSDI and other public disability benefits (PDB) derived fromjobs not covered by Social Security, such as state or local government jobs where the governmental employer has chosen not to coverits employees under Social Security.
30 States with reverse offset laws are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, NewYork, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin. In addition there are reverse offset rules for other types of PublicDisability benefits in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey and New York (SSA Program Operations Manual System DI 52105-001).
31 A fuller discussion of these measures is included in the Glossary and in Thomason, Schmidle, and Burton, 2001.
observed more slowly in measures of paid benefitsbecause the latter measure is also influenced by pay-ments for injuries occurring in years prior to thepolicy change.
However, a disadvantage of relying on the measureof incurred benefits is that it takes many years beforethe losses associated with injuries occurring in agiven year are known. NCCI updates accident yearincurred benefits for 16 years before the data for aparticular year are considered final (or “developed toultimate”). Estimates of benefits paid are final at theend of a calendar year.
Another disadvantage of using accident year incurreddata for reports such as this is that the data onincurred benefits are even more difficult to obtainthan data on benefits paid. Information on incurredbenefits is not routinely available for self-insuredemployers and for many state funds or for federalworkers’ compensation programs. In addition, dataon incurred benefits do not include benefits paid byemployers under large deductible policies, benefitspaid by employers insured under monopolistic statefunds, or benefits paid in states with a rating bureau.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 47
Table 20Dual Eligibles: Social Security Disability Insurance Beneficiaries with Workers' Compensationor Public Disability Benefits, 2012
Total Workers DependentsType of case Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
All disability insurance beneficiaries 10,889,193 100.0 8,826,591 100.0 2,062,602 100.0
Total with some connection to WC or PDB 1,393,706 12.8 1,102,742 12.5 290,964 14.1
Current connection to WC or PDB 698,529 6.4 553,027 6.3 145,502 7.1
DI reduced by cap 121,503 1.1 86,723 1.0 34,780 1.7
DI not reduced by cap 391,321 3.6 318,618 3.6 72,703 3.5
Reverse jurisdiction 56,194 0.5 44,820 0.5 11,374 0.6
Pending decision on WC or PDB 129,511 1.2 102,866 1.2 26,645 1.3
DI previously offset of WC or PDB 695,177 6.4 549,715 6.2 145,462 7.1
Notes: Social Security disability benefits are offset against workers’ compensation and certain other public disability benefits(PDB) in most states. In general, the PDB offset applies to disability benefits earned in state, local, or federal governmentemployment that is not covered by Social Security.
Source: Social Security Administration, Master Beneficiary Record, 100 percent data and Social Security AdministrationWorkers' Compensation and Public Disability Benefit file, 100 percent data, SSA 2012.
48 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 49
Glossary
AASCIF: The American Association of StateCompensation Insurance Funds (AASCIF) is anassociation of workers’ compensation insurance enti-ties – referred to as state funds – that specialize inwriting workers’ compensation insurance in a U.S.state or Canadian province. For more information,visit www.aascif.org.
Accident Year: The year in which an injury occurredor the year of onset or manifestation of an illness. Accident Year Incurred Benefits: Benefits associatedwith all injuries and illnesses occurring in the acci-dent year, regardless of the years in which thebenefits are paid. (Also known as calendar accidentyear incurred benefits.)
Black Lung Benefits: See: Coal Mine Health andSafety Act.
BLS: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) in theU.S. Department of Labor is a statistical agency thatcollects, processes, analyzes, and disseminates statisti-cal data about the labor market. For moreinformation, visit www.bls.gov.
Calendar Year Paid Benefits: Benefits paid during acalendar year regardless of when the injury or illnessoccurred.
Coal Mine Health and Safety Act: The Coal MineHealth and Safety Act (Public Law 91173) wasenacted in 1969 and provides black lung benefits tocoal miners disabled as a result of exposure to coaldust and to their survivors.
Combined Ratio After Dividends: [(1) Losses + (2)Loss Adjustment Expenses + (3) UnderwritingExpenses + (4) Dividends to Policyholders] / NetPremium. The Combined Ratio After Dividends isexpressed as a percentage of net premiums. (See:Overall Operating Ratio.)
Compromise and Release Agreement: An agree-ment to settle a case that usually involves threeelements: a compromise between the worker’s claimand the employer’s offer concerning the amount of
cash and/or medical benefits to be paid; the paymentof the compromised amount in a fixed amount(commonly called a “lump sum” but which may ormay not be paid to the claimant at once); and therelease of the employer from further liability.
Covered Employment: NASI’s coverage dataincludes employees of those employers required to becovered by workers’ compensation programs. A moreinclusive measure of covered employment alsoincludes employees of those employers that voluntar-ily elect coverage.
Deductibles: Under deductible policies written byprivate carriers or state funds, the insurer is responsi-ble for paying all of the workers’ compensationbenefits, but employers are responsible for reimburs-ing the insurer for those benefits up to a specifieddeductible amount. Deductibles may be written intoan insurance policy on a per injury basis, or anaggregate basis, or a combination of a per injurybasis with an aggregate cap.
Defense Base Act: The Defense Base Act (DBA-42U.S.C. §§ 1651-54) is a federal law extending theLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act(33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50) to persons (1) employed byprivate employers at United States defense basesoverseas, or (2) employed under a public work con-tract with the United States performed outside theUnited States, or (3) employed under a contract withthe United States performed outside United Statesunder the Foreign Assistance Act, or (4) employedby an American contractor providing welfare or simi-lar services outside the United States for the benefitof the Armed Services.
DI: Disability insurance from the Social Securityprogram. See: SSDI.
Disability: Loss of potential earning capacity as aconsequence of an injury or disease (although theremay not be an actual loss of earnings).
Dividends to Policyholders: Both mutual and somestock insurance companies offer policies that paydividends to policyholders after the policy period.Dividends are based on favorable loss experience bythe insurer or the policyholder.
50 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
FECA: The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act(FECA) Public Law 103-3 or 5 U.S.C. §§ 8101-52)provides workers’ compensation coverage to U.S.federal civilian and postal workers around the worldfor work related injuries and occupational diseases.
FELA: The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq.) gives railroad workersengaged in interstate commerce an action in negli-gence against their employer in the event of workrelated injuries or occupational diseases.
Guaranty Fund: A guaranty fund is a special statebased fund that assumes all or part of the liability forworkers’ compensation benefits provided to a workerbecause the employer or insurance carrier legallyresponsible for the benefits is unable to make pay-ments. Guaranty funds for private insurance carriers(all states with private carriers have these) and for selfinsuring employers (less than half the states havethese) are always separate funds.
Group Self Insurance: A special form of self insur-ance that is available to groups of employers; onlyavailable in a little over half the states.
IAIABC: The International Association of IndustrialAccident Boards and Commissions (IAIABC) is theorganization representing workers’ compensationagencies in the United States, Canada, and othernations and territories. For more information, visitwww.iaiabc.org.
Incurred Losses (or Incurred Benefits): Benefitspaid to the valuation date plus liabilities for futurebenefits for injuries that occurred in a specified peri-od, such as an accident year.
Jones Act: The Jones Act is Section 27 of theMerchant Marine Act (P.L. 66-261) that extends theprovision of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act toseamen.
LHWCA: The Longshore and Harbor Workers’Compensation Act (LHWCA 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-50)requires employers to provide workers’ compensationprotection for longshore, harbor, and other maritimeworkers. See: Defense Base Act (DBA)
Loss Adjustment Expenses: Salaries and fees paid toinsurance adjusters, as well as other expensesincurred from adjusting claims.
Losses: A flexible term that can be applied in severalways: Paid benefits, incurred benefits, fully devel-oped, and possibly including incurred but notreported.
NAIC: The National Association of InsuranceCommissioners (NAIC) is the national organizationof the chief insurance regulators in each state, theDistrict of Columbia, and five U.S. territories. Itassists state insurance regulators, individually andcollectively, to achieve insurance regulatory goals. Formore information, visit www.naic.org.
NCCI: The National Council on CompensationInsurance, Inc. (NCCI) is a national organizationthat assists private carriers and insurance commis-sioners in collecting statistical information forpricing workers’ compensation coverage in thirtyeight states. For more information, visitwww.ncci.com.
OSHA: The OSHAct created the OccupationalSafety and Health Administration (OSHA) withinthe United States Department of Labor. OSHA isresponsible for promulgating standards, inspectingworkplaces for compliance, and prosecuting violations.
OSHAct: The Occupational Safety and Health Act(OSHAct Public Law 91-596) is a federal law enact-ed in 1970 that establishes and enforces workplacesafety and health rules for nearly all private sectoremployers.
Overall Operating Ratio: The combined ratio afterdividends minus net investment gain/loss and otherincome as a percent of net premium. (See:Combined Ratio after Dividends.)
Paid Losses (or Paid Benefits): Benefits paid duringa specified period, such as a calendar year, regardlessof when the injury or disease occurred.
Permanent Partial Disability (PPD): A disabilitythat, although permanent, does not completely limit
a person’s ability to work. A statutory benefit awardis paid for qualifying injuries.
Permanent Total Disability (PTD): A permanentdisability that is deemed by law to preclude materiallevels of employment.
Residual Market: The mechanism used to provideinsurance for employers who are unable to purchaseinsurance in the voluntary private market. In somejurisdictions the state fund is the “insurer of lastresort” and serves the function of the residual mar-ket. In others, there is a separate pool financed byassessments of private insurers, which is also knownas an assigned risk pool.
Second Injury Fund: A second injury fund is a spe-cial fund that assumes all or part of the liability forworkers’ compensation benefits provided to a workerbecause of the combined effects of a work relatedinjury or disease with a preexisting medical condition.
Self-insurance: Self insurance is an arrangement inwhich the employer assumes responsibility for thepayment of workers’ compensation benefits to thefirm’s employees with workplace injuries or diseases.Most employers do not selfinsure but instead pur-chase workers’ compensation insurance from aprivate carrier or state fund.
SSA: The U.S. Social Security Administration (SSA)administers the Social Security program, which paysretirement, disability, and survivors’ benefits to work-ers and their families, and the federal SupplementalSecurity Income program that provides income sup-port benefits to low-income aged, and disabledindividuals. For more information, visit www.ssa.gov.
SSDI: Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)pays benefits to insured workers who sustain severe,long-term work disabilities due to any cause. See:DI.
Temporary Partial Disability (TPD): A temporarydisability that does not completely limit a person’sability to work.
Temporary Total Disability (TTD): A disabilitythat temporarily precludes a person from performingthe pre-injury job or another job at the employerthat the worker could have performed prior to theinjury.
Underwriting Expenses: Commissions, brokerageexpenses, general expenses, taxes, licenses, and fees. Underwriting Results: The underwriting experienceof private insurance carriers. (See: Combined RatioAfter Dividends and Overall Operating Ratio.)
Unemployment Insurance (UI): Federal/state pro-gram that provides cash benefits to workers whobecome unemployed through no fault of their ownand who meet certain eligibility criteria set by thestates.
USDOL: The U.S. Department of Labor adminis-ters a variety of federal labor laws including thosethat guarantee workers’ rights to safe and healthyworking conditions, a minimum hourly wage andovertime pay, freedom from employment discrimina-tion, unemployment insurance, and other incomesupport. For more information, visit www.dol.gov.
Valuation Date: A specific time at which data areevaluated in order to determine the losses (or bene-fits) paid to that date plus reserves as of that date.
WC: Workers’ compensation. A form of governmentinsurance mandated for most employers that pro-vides statutory benefits for covered work relatedinjuries.
WCRI: The Workers Compensation ResearchInstitute (WCRI) is a research organization provid-ing information about public policy issues involvingworkers’ compensation systems. For more informa-tion, visit www.wcrinet.org
Work Related Injury/Illness: An injury or illnesscaused by activities related to the workplace. Theusual legal test for “work related” is “arising out ofand in the course of employment.” However, thedefinition of a work related injury or disease that iscompensable under a state’s workers’ compensationprogram can be quite complex and varies acrossstates.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 51
52 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
The National Academy of Social Insurance’s esti-mates of workers’ compensation coverage start withthe number of workers in each state who are coveredby Unemployment Insurance (UI) (U.S. DOL2013f). Those who are not required to be coveredinclude: some farm and domestic workers who earnless than a threshold amount from one employer;some state and local employees, such as elected offi-cials; employees of some nonprofit entities, such asreligious organizations, for whom coverage is option-al in some states; unpaid family workers; and railroademployees who are covered under a separate unem-ployment insurance program. Railroad workers arealso not covered by state workers’ compensationbecause they have other arrangements (NASI 2002).
One category of workers who are not covered undereither unemployment insurance or workers’ compen-sation is self-employed individuals. All U.S.employers who are required to pay unemploymenttaxes must report quarterly to their state employ-ment security agencies information about theiremployees and payroll covered by unemploymentinsurance. These employer reports are the basis forstatistical reports prepared by the U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics, known as the ES-202 data. Thesedata are a census of the universe of U.S. workers whoare covered by unemployment insurance (U.S. DOL2013f).
Key assumptions underlying NASI estimates ofworkers’ compensation coverage, shown in Table A,are: (1) Workers whose employers do not report that
they are covered by UI are not covered by work-ers’ compensation.
(2) Workers that are reported to be covered by UIare generally covered by workers’ compensationas well, except in the following cases:
(a) Workers in small firms (which are requiredto provide UI coverage in every state) are notcovered by workers’ compensation if the statelaw exempts small firms from mandatoryworkers’ compensation coverage.
(b) Employees in agricultural industries (whomay be covered by UI) are not covered byworkers’ compensation if the state law
exempts agricultural employers from manda-tory workers’ compensation coverage.
(c) In Texas, where workers’ compensation cov-erage is elective for almost all employers, esti-mates are based on periodic surveys con-ducted by the Texas Research and OversightCouncil. (TDI et al 2013).
All federal employees are covered by workers’ com-pensation, regardless of the state in which they work.
Small Firm Exemptions. NASI assumes that work-ers are not covered by workers’ compensation if theywork for small firms in the fifteen states that exemptsmall employers from mandatory coverage. Privatefirms with fewer than three employees are exemptfrom mandatory coverage in eight states: Arkansas,Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina,Virginia, West Virginia and Wisconsin. Those withfewer than four employees are exempt in two states:Florida, and South Carolina. Finally, firms withfewer than five employees are exempt from mandato-ry coverage in Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri,Oklahoma, and Tennessee (IAIABC-WCRI 2012).
The number of employees in small firms is estimatedusing data from the U.S. Small BusinessAdministration for each state, which show the pro-portion of employees in all private firms who workedfor firms with fewer than five employees in 2011, thelatest year for which data are available. Those per-centages for the fifteen states with numericalexemptions are: Alabama, 4.8 percent; Arkansas, 5.0percent; Florida, 6.4 percent; Georgia, 5.0 percent;Michigan, 4.9 percent; Mississippi, 5.2 percent;Missouri, 4.9 percent; New Mexico, 5.7 percent;North Carolina, 5.0 percent; Oklahoma, 5.7 per-cent; South Carolina, 5.1 percent; Tennessee, 4.2percent; Virginia, 4.8 percent; West Virginia, 5.0percent and Wisconsin, 4.3 percent (U.S. SBA2013).
To estimate the proportion of workers in firms withfewer than three or four employees, we used nationaldata on small firms from the U.S. Census Bureau(U.S. Census Bureau 2005).
Appendix A: Coverage Estimates
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 53
Of workers in firms with fewer than five employees,79.9 percent worked in firms with fewer than fouremployees and 57.4 percent worked in firms withfewer than three employees. These ratios wereapplied to the percentage of workers in firms withfewer than five employees in the respective states. Forexample, the proportion of Arkansas private sectorworkers in firms with fewer than three employees is:(5.0 percent) x (57.4 percent) = 2.9 percent. Theseratios are applied to the number of UI covered work-ers in private, nonfarm firms in each state. In thefifteen states together, we estimate that 1.3 millionworkers were excluded from workers’ compensationcoverage in 2012 because of the small employerexclusion from mandatory coverage.
Agricultural Exemptions. We estimate agriculturalworkers to be excluded from workers’ compensationcoverage if they work in any state where agricultural
employers are exempt from mandatory coverage. Thefollowing thirteen states have no exemptions for agri-cultural workers: Alaska, Arizona, California,Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho,Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio,Oregon, and Wyoming. In all the other jurisdictionswe subtract from UI coverage those workersemployed in agricultural industries.
Texas. In Texas, where workers’ compensation cover-age is elective for almost all employers, NASIestimate of coverage is based on periodic surveysconducted by the Texas Department of Insuranceand the Workers’ Compensation Research andEvaluation Group, which found 81 percent of Texasemployees were covered in 2012 (TDI et al. 2013).This ratio was applied to all UI covered Texasemployees other than federal government workers(who were not included in the Texas surveys).
54 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table A
Doc
umen
ting
Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsation Cov
erag
e Estim
ates, 2
012 Ann
ual A
verage
s
UI C
over
ed Jo
bsa
Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsat
ion
Exe
mpt
ions
Priv
ate, n
on-
WC
W
C as a
Tota
lfa
rm fi
rms
Small F
irm
bAgr
icul
ture
Texa
sC
over
ed Jo
bs%
of U
ISt
ate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Alaba
ma
1,77
2,27
3 1,
475,
785
70,3
46
5,02
2 -
1,
696,
905
95.7
Alask
a31
0,96
1 25
6,73
5 -
31
0,96
1 10
0.0
Arizo
na2,
373,
931
2,05
7,09
8 -
2,
373,
931
100.
0 Ark
ansa
s1,
126,
651
954,
091
27,4
53
7,23
2 -
1,
091,
966
96.9
C
alifo
rnia
14,6
74,2
23
12,5
15,7
46
-
14,6
74,2
23
100.
0 C
olor
ado
2,21
1,81
0 1,
924,
185
11,5
87
-
2,20
0,22
3 99
.5
Con
nect
icut
1,61
0,65
8 1,
398,
277
-
1,61
0,65
8 10
0.0
Delaw
are
399,
492
345,
925
1,12
3 -
39
8,36
9 99
.7
District o
f Col
umbi
a50
6,34
9 47
3,46
4 -
50
6,34
9 10
0.0
Flor
ida
7,20
6,22
3 6,
257,
547
318,
122
55,6
92
-
6,83
2,40
9 94
.8
Geo
rgia
3,74
2,78
5 3,
204,
076
91,9
12
14,1
53
-
3,63
6,72
0 97
.2
Haw
aii
568,
816
476,
805
-
568,
816
100.
0 Id
aho
602,
293
491,
297
-
602,
293
100.
0 Illin
ois
5,55
0,44
0 4,
906,
376
13,5
63
-
5,53
6,87
7 99
.8
Indi
ana
2,77
4,74
2 2,
420,
920
12,5
25
-
2,76
2,21
7 99
.5
Iow
a1,
456,
480
1,24
0,07
2 13
,656
-
1,
442,
824
99.1
K
ansa
s1,
294,
691
1,23
7,10
2 9,
628
-
1,28
5,06
3 99
.3
Ken
tuck
y1,
721,
940
1,46
0,52
4 4,
218
-
1,71
7,72
2 99
.8
Loui
sian
a1,
837,
775
1,54
3,85
4 4,
702
-
1,83
3,07
3 99
.7
Mai
ne56
8,33
1 48
6,43
5 2,
917
-
565,
414
99.5
M
aryl
and
2,36
7,19
4 2,
031,
277
4,23
1 -
2,
362,
963
99.8
M
assa
chus
etts
3,18
9,86
6 2,
943,
936
-
3,18
9,86
6 10
0.0
Michi
gan
3,88
0,71
1 3,
363,
579
95,2
81
21,8
81
-
3,76
3,54
9 97
.0
Min
neso
ta2,
614,
176
2,26
5,91
8 16
,900
-
2,
597,
276
99.4
M
ississip
pi1,
059,
549
859,
265
44,2
87
7,73
3 -
1,
007,
529
95.1
M
isso
uri
2,55
2,24
6 2,
206,
051
108,
729
9,00
9 -
2,
434,
508
95.4
Mon
tana
416,
951
388,
616
3,26
2 -
41
3,68
9 99
.2
Neb
rask
a90
2,66
6 75
8,14
7 10
,334
-
89
2,33
2 98
.9
Nev
ada
1,11
3,82
1 98
9,08
2 2,
025
-
1,11
1,79
6 99
.8
New
Ham
pshi
re60
5,00
5 52
6,23
4 -
60
5,00
5 10
0.0
New
Jersey
3,72
4,81
5 3,
248,
358
-
3,72
4,81
5 10
0.0
New
Mex
ico
753,
642
610,
832
19,8
76
8,48
1 -
72
5,28
5 96
.2
New
Yor
k8,
448,
172
7,18
3,19
5 20
,091
8,
428,
081
99.8
N
orth
Car
olin
a3,
835,
447
3,20
9,94
5 92
,267
21
,552
-
3,
721,
628
97.0
N
orth
Dak
ota
402,
159
347,
885
3,29
5 -
39
8,86
4 99
.2
Ohi
o4,
967,
072
4,32
9,01
0 -
4,
967,
072
100.
0 O
klah
oma
1,48
6,68
3 1,
290,
791
73,3
15
9,22
6 -
1,
404,
142
94.4
O
rego
n1,
612,
498
1,35
2,28
7 -
1,
612,
498
100.
0 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia5,
476,
193
4,87
7,12
2 18
,476
-
5,
457,
717
99.7
Rho
de Is
land
441,
637
393,
282
594
-
441,
043
99.9
So
uth
Car
olin
a1,
776,
349
1,48
3,14
5 59
,863
5,
895
-
1,71
0,59
1 96
.3
Sout
h D
akot
a38
8,98
1 33
5,97
9 3,
949
-
385,
032
99.0
Te
nnes
see
2,60
4,32
0 2,
281,
903
95,2
37
5,59
6 -
2,
503,
487
96.1
Te
xas
10,5
20,6
83
8,99
9,27
3 44
,457
1,
998,
930
8,47
7,29
6 80
.6
Uta
h1,
180,
786
1,00
7,10
1 4,
216
-
1,17
6,57
0 99
.6
Ver
mon
t29
2,22
9 24
5,10
3 2,
216
-
290,
013
99.2
V
irgi
nia
3,44
5,83
4 2,
962,
259
82,1
80
8,61
7 -
3,
355,
037
97.4
W
ashi
ngto
n2,
822,
075
2,32
8,27
6 70
,584
-
2,
751,
491
97.5
W
est V
irgi
nia
687,
136
574,
440
16,5
45
826
-
669,
765
97.5
W
isco
nsin
2,66
4,28
5 2,
305,
066
57,1
94
20,4
52
-
2,58
6,63
9 97
.1
Wyo
min
g27
0,83
5 21
4,06
2 -
27
0,83
5 10
0.0
U.S
. non
-fed
eral
128,
814,
880
111,
037,
733
1,25
2,60
5 47
9,91
6 1,
998,
930
125,
083,
429
97.1
Fe
dera
l 2,
820,
223
-
- -
- 2,
820,
223
100.
0 U
.S. T
OT
AL
131,
635,
103
111,
037,
733
1,25
2,60
5 47
9,91
6 1,
998,
930
127,
903,
652
97.2
Notes:
a. U
I-co
vere
d em
ploy
men
t rep
orte
d in
the ETA-2
02 d
ata pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e U
nite
d St
ates
Bur
eau
of L
abor
Sta
tistic
s (U
.S. D
OL,
201
3)
b. D
ata no
t ava
ilabl
e fo
r 20
12, u
sed
the 20
11 d
ata.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 55
Table A
Doc
umen
ting
Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsation Cov
erag
e Estim
ates, 2
012 Ann
ual A
verage
s
UI C
over
ed Jo
bsa
Wor
kers’ C
ompe
nsat
ion
Exe
mpt
ions
Priv
ate, n
on-
WC
W
C as a
Tota
lfa
rm fi
rms
Small F
irm
bAgr
icul
ture
Texa
sC
over
ed Jo
bs%
of U
ISt
ate
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Alaba
ma
1,77
2,27
3 1,
475,
785
70,3
46
5,02
2 -
1,
696,
905
95.7
Alask
a31
0,96
1 25
6,73
5 -
31
0,96
1 10
0.0
Arizo
na2,
373,
931
2,05
7,09
8 -
2,
373,
931
100.
0 Ark
ansa
s1,
126,
651
954,
091
27,4
53
7,23
2 -
1,
091,
966
96.9
C
alifo
rnia
14,6
74,2
23
12,5
15,7
46
-
14,6
74,2
23
100.
0 C
olor
ado
2,21
1,81
0 1,
924,
185
11,5
87
-
2,20
0,22
3 99
.5
Con
nect
icut
1,61
0,65
8 1,
398,
277
-
1,61
0,65
8 10
0.0
Delaw
are
399,
492
345,
925
1,12
3 -
39
8,36
9 99
.7
District o
f Col
umbi
a50
6,34
9 47
3,46
4 -
50
6,34
9 10
0.0
Flor
ida
7,20
6,22
3 6,
257,
547
318,
122
55,6
92
-
6,83
2,40
9 94
.8
Geo
rgia
3,74
2,78
5 3,
204,
076
91,9
12
14,1
53
-
3,63
6,72
0 97
.2
Haw
aii
568,
816
476,
805
-
568,
816
100.
0 Id
aho
602,
293
491,
297
-
602,
293
100.
0 Illin
ois
5,55
0,44
0 4,
906,
376
13,5
63
-
5,53
6,87
7 99
.8
Indi
ana
2,77
4,74
2 2,
420,
920
12,5
25
-
2,76
2,21
7 99
.5
Iow
a1,
456,
480
1,24
0,07
2 13
,656
-
1,
442,
824
99.1
K
ansa
s1,
294,
691
1,23
7,10
2 9,
628
-
1,28
5,06
3 99
.3
Ken
tuck
y1,
721,
940
1,46
0,52
4 4,
218
-
1,71
7,72
2 99
.8
Loui
sian
a1,
837,
775
1,54
3,85
4 4,
702
-
1,83
3,07
3 99
.7
Mai
ne56
8,33
1 48
6,43
5 2,
917
-
565,
414
99.5
M
aryl
and
2,36
7,19
4 2,
031,
277
4,23
1 -
2,
362,
963
99.8
M
assa
chus
etts
3,18
9,86
6 2,
943,
936
-
3,18
9,86
6 10
0.0
Michi
gan
3,88
0,71
1 3,
363,
579
95,2
81
21,8
81
-
3,76
3,54
9 97
.0
Min
neso
ta2,
614,
176
2,26
5,91
8 16
,900
-
2,
597,
276
99.4
M
ississip
pi1,
059,
549
859,
265
44,2
87
7,73
3 -
1,
007,
529
95.1
M
isso
uri
2,55
2,24
6 2,
206,
051
108,
729
9,00
9 -
2,
434,
508
95.4
Mon
tana
416,
951
388,
616
3,26
2 -
41
3,68
9 99
.2
Neb
rask
a90
2,66
6 75
8,14
7 10
,334
-
89
2,33
2 98
.9
Nev
ada
1,11
3,82
1 98
9,08
2 2,
025
-
1,11
1,79
6 99
.8
New
Ham
pshi
re60
5,00
5 52
6,23
4 -
60
5,00
5 10
0.0
New
Jersey
3,72
4,81
5 3,
248,
358
-
3,72
4,81
5 10
0.0
New
Mex
ico
753,
642
610,
832
19,8
76
8,48
1 -
72
5,28
5 96
.2
New
Yor
k8,
448,
172
7,18
3,19
5 20
,091
8,
428,
081
99.8
N
orth
Car
olin
a3,
835,
447
3,20
9,94
5 92
,267
21
,552
-
3,
721,
628
97.0
N
orth
Dak
ota
402,
159
347,
885
3,29
5 -
39
8,86
4 99
.2
Ohi
o4,
967,
072
4,32
9,01
0 -
4,
967,
072
100.
0 O
klah
oma
1,48
6,68
3 1,
290,
791
73,3
15
9,22
6 -
1,
404,
142
94.4
O
rego
n1,
612,
498
1,35
2,28
7 -
1,
612,
498
100.
0 Pe
nnsy
lvan
ia5,
476,
193
4,87
7,12
2 18
,476
-
5,
457,
717
99.7
Rho
de Is
land
441,
637
393,
282
594
-
441,
043
99.9
So
uth
Car
olin
a1,
776,
349
1,48
3,14
5 59
,863
5,
895
-
1,71
0,59
1 96
.3
Sout
h D
akot
a38
8,98
1 33
5,97
9 3,
949
-
385,
032
99.0
Te
nnes
see
2,60
4,32
0 2,
281,
903
95,2
37
5,59
6 -
2,
503,
487
96.1
Te
xas
10,5
20,6
83
8,99
9,27
3 44
,457
1,
998,
930
8,47
7,29
6 80
.6
Uta
h1,
180,
786
1,00
7,10
1 4,
216
-
1,17
6,57
0 99
.6
Ver
mon
t29
2,22
9 24
5,10
3 2,
216
-
290,
013
99.2
V
irgi
nia
3,44
5,83
4 2,
962,
259
82,1
80
8,61
7 -
3,
355,
037
97.4
W
ashi
ngto
n2,
822,
075
2,32
8,27
6 70
,584
-
2,
751,
491
97.5
W
est V
irgi
nia
687,
136
574,
440
16,5
45
826
-
669,
765
97.5
W
isco
nsin
2,66
4,28
5 2,
305,
066
57,1
94
20,4
52
-
2,58
6,63
9 97
.1
Wyo
min
g27
0,83
5 21
4,06
2 -
27
0,83
5 10
0.0
U.S
. non
-fed
eral
128,
814,
880
111,
037,
733
1,25
2,60
5 47
9,91
6 1,
998,
930
125,
083,
429
97.1
Fe
dera
l 2,
820,
223
-
- -
- 2,
820,
223
100.
0 U
.S. T
OT
AL
131,
635,
103
111,
037,
733
1,25
2,60
5 47
9,91
6 1,
998,
930
127,
903,
652
97.2
Notes:
a. U
I-co
vere
d em
ploy
men
t rep
orte
d in
the ETA-2
02 d
ata pr
oduc
ed b
y th
e U
nite
d St
ates
Bur
eau
of L
abor
Sta
tistic
s (U
.S. D
OL,
201
3)
b. D
ata no
t ava
ilabl
e fo
r 20
12, u
sed
the 20
11 d
ata.
Source:N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
ocia
l Ins
uran
ce estim
ates
.
Various federal programs compensate certain cate-gories of workers for disabilities caused on the joband provide benefits to dependents of workers whodie of work related causes. Each program is describedbriefly below along with an explanation of whetherand how it is included in our national totals of work-ers’ compensation benefits. Our aim in this report isto include in the national totals for workers’ com-pensation those federally administered programs thatare financed by employers and that are not otherwiseincluded in workers’ compensation benefits reportedby states, such as the benefits paid under the FederalEmployees’ Compensation Act. Programs that coverprivate sector workers and are financed by federalgeneral revenues, such as the Radiation ExposureCompensation Act, are not included in our nationaltotals for workers’ compensation benefits andemployer costs. More detail on these programs isgiven below.
Federal Employees The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act of 1916(FECA), which superseded previous workers’ com-pensation laws for federal employees, provided thefirst comprehensive workers’ compensation programfor federal civilian employees. In 2012, total benefitswere $3,006 million, of which 31 percent were formedical care. The share of benefits for medical care islower than in most state programs because federalcash benefits, particularly for higher wage workers,replace a larger share of pre-injury wages than is thecase in most state programs. Administrative costs ofthe program were $158 million in calendar year2012, or 5.2 percent of total benefits (U.S. DOL2014). Table B1 reports benefits and administrativecosts for federal civilian employees under the FederalEmployees’ Compensation Act from 2002-2012.These benefits to workers and costs to the federalgovernment as employer are included in nationaltotals in this report, and are classified with federalprograms.
Longshore and Harbor Workers The Longshore and Harbor Workers’ CompensationAct (LHWCA) requires employers to provide work-ers’ compensation protection for long shore, harbor,and other maritime workers. The original program,enacted in 1927, covered maritime employeesinjured while working over navigable waters because
the Supreme Court held that the Constitution pro-hibits states from extending coverage to suchindividuals. The Longshore and Harbor Workers’Compensation Act (LHWCA) is a federal workers’compensation program for maritime employeesinjured while working over navigable waters, exclud-ing the master or crew of a vessel. It also covers otherworkers who fall outside the jurisdiction of state pro-grams, such as employees on overseas military bases,those working overseas for private contractors of theUnited States, and private employees engaged in off-shore drilling enterprises. Private employers coverlongshore and harbor workers by purchasing privateinsurance or self insuring. In fiscal year 2012, about600 self-insured employers and insurance companiesreported a total of 29,287 lost time injuries to thefederal Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs.Total benefits paid under the Act in 2012 were$1,364 million, which included $802 million paidby private insurance carriers, $431 million paid byself-insured employers, $122 million paid from thefederally administered special fund for secondinjuries and other purposes, and $8.7 million for theDistrict of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act(DCCA) Fund. Federal direct administrative costswere $13.3 million or about 1.0 percent of benefitspaid (Table B2).
The Academy’s data series on benefits and costs ofworkers’ compensation includes at least part of thebenefits paid by private carriers under the LHWCAin the states where the companies operate. The bene-fits are not identified separately in the informationprovided by A.M. Best and state agencies. Benefitspaid by private employers who self-insure under theLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Actare not reported by states or A.M. Best.
Consequently, these benefits and employer costs areincluded with federal programs in this report. TableB2 shows benefits reported to the U.S. Departmentof Labor by insurers and self-insured employersunder the Longshore and Harbor Workers’Compensation Act from 2002-2012. Ideally, benefitsand employer costs under the LHWCA would becounted in the states where the employee is located,because our estimates of covered employment andcovered workers count these workers and wages inthe states where they work. We believe that at least
56 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Appendix B: Federal Programs
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 57
Table B1
Fede
ral E
mploy
ees’ Com
pens
ation Act, B
enefits an
d Cos
ts, 2
002–
2012
(in th
ousand
s)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Tota
l Ben
efits
$2,3
17,3
25$2
,367
,757
$2,4
45,0
77$2
,462
,059
$2,4
54,8
61$2
,586
,700
$2,6
76,3
70$2
,763
,885
2,88
9,32
12,
994,
122
3,00
6,00
9
Com
pens
atio
n Ben
efits
1,65
1,94
71,
698,
273
1,74
9,39
71,
791,
003
1,76
7,92
61,
833,
958
1,87
8,33
11,
900,
156
1,97
6,43
92,
077,
027
2,08
1,38
7M
edical B
enef
its66
5,37
866
9,48
469
5,68
067
1,05
668
6,93
575
2,74
279
8,03
986
3,72
991
2,88
291
7,09
592
4,62
2%
Med
ical
2928
2827
2829
3031
3231
31
Dire
ct A
dmin
istra
tive C
osts
115,
226
130,
672
131,
920
128,
536
137,
386
143,
768
142,
532
146,
015
156,
522
155,
027
157,
660
Tota
l Cos
ts2,
432,
551
2,49
8,42
92,
576,
997
2,59
0,59
52,
592,
247
2,73
0,46
82,
818,
902
2,90
9,90
03,
045,
843
3,14
9,14
93,
163,
669
Indi
rect
Adm
inist
rativ
e C
ostsa
4,59
64,
806
4,58
75,
494
7,61
96,
773
7,75
67,
739
7,76
58,
161
7,72
1
a.
Includ
es le
gal a
nd in
vestig
ativ
e su
ppor
t fro
m th
e O
ffice
of t
he S
olicito
r an
d th
e O
ffice
of t
he In
spec
tor G
ener
al.
Source:U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
201
4.
58 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table B2
Lon
gsho
re and
Harbo
r W
orke
rs’ C
ompe
nsation Act, B
enefits, C
osts, a
nd N
umbe
r of D
BA
aDea
th C
laim
s, 200
2–20
12 (in th
ousand
s)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Tota
l Ben
efits
$700
,563
$716
,218
$747
,321
$795
,466
$879
,508
$923
,045
$983
,050
$1,0
81,2
66$1
,134
,759
$1,2
69,9
04$1
,363
,544
Insu
ranc
e C
arrier
sa24
6,60
326
2,75
327
8,88
732
5,02
736
7,62
545
6,77
350
4,34
855
1,71
658
9,38
771
0,33
080
1,90
2
Self-
Insu
ranc
e Em
ploy
er31
0,94
030
9,84
332
2,52
032
5,69
436
8,74
432
5,54
434
0,33
638
8,08
840
8,53
442
5,58
143
0,85
3
LHW
CA S
pecial F
und
131,
684
132,
504
135,
073
134,
230
132,
933
130,
673
128,
372
131,
544
127,
415
124,
664
122,
133
DC
CA S
pecial F
und
11,3
3611
,118
10,8
4110
,515
10,2
0610
,055
9,99
49,
918
9,42
39,
328
8,65
6
DBAabe
nefit
s 7,
582
11,3
3830
,079
59,7
9711
5,75
817
0,23
119
9,83
724
2,53
031
1,64
341
5,27
454
0,28
3
Num
ber of
DBA D
eath
Claim
sb7
5623
128
433
842
628
934
158
540
528
0
Tota
l Ann
ual A
sses
smen
ts13
6,00
013
5,80
014
8,50
014
6,50
013
5,50
013
5,00
013
2,50
013
6,50
013
1,50
013
1,00
013
2,00
0
LHW
CA
125,
000
125,
000
137,
000
135,
000
125,
000
125,
000
124,
000
125,
000
124,
000
123,
000
124,
000
DC
CA
11,0
0010
,800
11,5
0011
,500
10,5
0010
,000
8,50
011
,500
7,50
08,
000
8,00
0
Adm
inist
rativ
e Exp
ense
s 11
,945
12,2
7012
,510
12,5
6812
,715
12,7
2512
,667
12,9
2213
,394
13,4
6113
,329
Gen
eral R
even
ue9,
988
10,2
9710
,495
10,5
5310
,691
10,6
9910
,633
10,8
5511
,356
11,3
5411
,229
Trus
t Fun
d1,
957
1,97
32,
015
2,01
52,
024
2,02
62,
034
2,06
72,
038
2,10
72,
100
Indi
rect
Adm
inist
rativ
e C
ostsc
2,51
42,
347
2,39
62,
019
2,11
52,
437
1,85
62,
155
2,76
61,
922
1,75
0
a.In
clud
es b
enef
it co
sts f
or cas
es u
nder
the D
efen
se B
ase Act
(DBA) a
nd all
othe
r ex
tens
ions
to th
e Lo
ngsh
ore an
d H
arbo
r Wor
kers' C
ompe
nsat
ion
Act
.
b.N
umbe
r of
civ
ilian
ove
rsea
s dea
ths.
c.In
clud
es le
gal a
nd in
vestig
ativ
e su
ppor
t fro
m th
e O
ffice
of t
he S
olicito
r an
d th
e O
ffice
of t
he In
spec
tor G
ener
al. T
hese
are
not
em
ploy
er cos
ts, b
ut are
pro
vide
d fo
r th
roug
h ge
nera
lre
venu
e ap
prop
riat
ions
.
Source:U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
201
4.
part of LHWCA benefits paid through private insur-ance carriers are included in state data that arereported to us by A.M. Best or the states. At thesame time, self-insured employers under theLHWCA are not included in A.M. Best data and areunlikely to be included in state reports; benefits paidfrom the LHWCA special funds are not included instate data. Thus, for 2002–2012 data, our estimatesof total federal benefits include benefits paid by self-insured employers and the special funds under theLHWCA. Unless otherwise specified, we assume thatprivately insured benefits under the program areincluded in state reports. Whether and howLHWCA benefits can be reflected in state reports isa subject for analysis.
Total benefits under the Longshore and HarborWorkers’ Compensation Act include benefits paidunder the Defense Base Act (DBA). Under the DBA,benefits are paid for injuries or deaths of employees(of any nationality) working overseas for companiesunder contract with the United States government.These benefits are also shown separately in Table B2.Total payments rose from about $7.6 million in2002 to $540 million in 2012. The number of DBAdeath claims per year rose from single digits prior to2003, to 585 in 2010. The increase reflects, in largepart, claims and deaths of employees of companiesworking under contract for the U.S. government inthe war zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, thenumber of DBA death claims fell since 2011 andwas 280 in 2012.
Coal Miners with Black Lung Disease The Black Lung Benefits Act, enacted in 1969, pro-vides compensation for coal miners withpneumoconiosis, or black lung disease, and their sur-vivors. The program has two parts. Part B is financedby federal general revenues, and was administered bythe Social Security Administration until 1997 whenadministration shifted to the U.S. Department ofLabor. Part C is paid through the Black LungDisability Trust Fund, which is financed by coalmineoperators through a federal excise tax on coal that ismined and sold in the United States. In this report,only the Part C benefits that are financed by employ-ers are included in national totals of workers’compensation benefits and employer costs in 2002–2012. Total benefits in 2012 were $369 million, ofwhich $161 million was paid under Part B and $208
million was paid under Part C. Part C benefitsinclude $31 million for medical care. Medical bene-fits are a small share of black lung benefits becausemany of the recipients of benefits are deceased coalminers’ dependents, whose medical care is not cov-ered by the program. Federal direct administrativecosts were $37.9 million or about 10.3 percent ofbenefit payments.
Table B3 shows benefits under the Black LungBenefit program in 2002 through 2012 for bothparts of the program. Its benefits are paid directly bythe responsible mine operator or insurer, from thefederal Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, or fromfederal general revenue funds. No data are availableon the experience of employers who self-insure underthe Black Lung program. Any such benefits andcosts are not reflected in Table B3 and are notincluded in national estimates.
Energy Employees The Energy Employees Occupational IllnessCompensation Program Act (EEOICPA) provideslump sum payments up to $150,000 to civilianworkers (and/or their survivors) who became ill as aresult of exposure to radiation, beryllium, or silica inthe production or testing of nuclear weapons andother materials. This is Part B of the program, whichwent into effect in July 2001. It provides smallerlump sum payments to individuals previously foundeligible for an award under the Radiation ExposureCompensation Act. Medical benefits are awarded forthe treatment of covered conditions. Total benefits in2012 were $868 million, of which $539 millionwere paid as compensation benefits (U.S. DOL2014). The EEOICPA originally included a Part Dprogram that required the Department of Energy(DOE) to establish a system for contractor employ-ees and eligible survivors to seek DOE assistance inobtaining state workers’ compensation benefits forwork related exposure to toxic substances at a DOEfacility. In October 2004 Congress abolished Part D,creating a new Part E program to be administered bythe Department of Labor. Part E provides benefitpayments up to $250,000 for DOE contractoremployees, eligible survivors of such employees, anduranium miners, millers, and ore transporters. Wageloss, medical, and survivor benefits are also providedunder certain conditions. Total Part E benefits in2012 were $319 million. Benefits under both Part Band Part E are financed by general revenues and are
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 59
60 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table B3
Black
Lun
g Ben
efits Act, B
enefits an
d Cos
ts, 2
002–
2012
(in th
ousand
s)
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Tota
l Ben
efits
$821
,678
$775
,098
$719
,065
$665
,844
$616
,039
$569
,300
$524
,645
$481
,172
$445
,488
$406
,514
$368
,661
Part C
Com
pens
atio
n31
6,58
530
3,72
428
9,69
927
6,41
326
2,02
624
8,37
523
1,26
121
7,68
520
4,87
318
9,36
317
6,88
6
Part C
Med
ical B
enef
its65
,756
59,7
3952
,992
49,2
4441
,552
38,5
4537
,492
31,4
8532
,492
33,9
3530
,982
Part B
Com
pens
atio
n43
9,33
741
1,63
537
6,37
434
0,18
731
2,46
128
2,38
025
5,89
223
2,00
220
8,12
318
3,21
616
0,79
3
Tota
l Dire
ct A
dmin
istra
tive C
osts
36,1
2337
,393
38,0
5737
,917
38,4
5338
,749
38,0
0937
,502
37,2
9236
,818
37,8
99
Part C
(DO
L)31
,488
31,9
9132
,157
32,7
2433
,182
33,3
7432
,648
32,4
1132
,363
31,6
9532
,486
Part B
(SSA
)4,
635
5,40
25,
900
5,19
35,
271
5,37
55,
361
5,09
14,
929
5,12
35,
413
Trus
t Fun
d Adv
ance
s
from
U.S
. Tre
asur
ya46
5,00
052
5,00
049
7,00
044
6,00
044
5,00
042
6,00
042
6,00
00
60,0
0010
7,74
921
4,00
0
Bon
d Pa
ymen
tsb
**
**
**
*34
1,93
936
4,75
740
0,90
543
1,48
6
Inte
rest P
aym
ents o
n Pa
st A
dvan
cesc
595,
589
620,
582
650,
579
674,
894
694,
964
717,
214
739,
469
00
60,1
6010
7,86
4
Coa
l Tax
Rev
enue
s Rec
eive
d
by th
e Black
Lun
g Tr
ust F
und
588,
000
480,
080
577,
575
620,
420
598,
520
650,
432
646,
800
652,
935
588,
743
631,
002
512,
866
Indi
rect
Adm
inist
rativ
e C
ostsd
23,0
5023
,459
23,9
1424
,424
25,2
4226
,020
25,4
7325
,528
25,9
7926
,191
25,7
67
*in
form
atio
n no
t ava
ilabl
e
a.
Adv
ance
of f
unds
requ
ired
whe
n Tr
ust F
und
expe
nses
exe
ed ta
x re
venu
es re
ceiv
ed in
a g
iven
yea
r. U
nder
the Em
erge
ncy
Eco
nom
ic S
tabi
lizat
ion
Act
of 2
008
(EESA
), to
tal T
rust F
und
debt
(cum
ulat
ive ad
vanc
es) a
t the
end
of 2
008
was
con
verted
to zer
o co
upon
bon
ds th
at are
repa
yabl
e to
the U
.S. T
reas
ury
on an
annu
al b
asis.
b. Rep
aym
ent o
f bon
d pr
incipa
l and
inte
rest o
n pr
incipa
l deb
t as r
equi
red
by th
e Tr
ust F
und
debt
restru
ctur
ing
portio
n of
the EESA
.
c.
1997
-200
8 ar
e in
tere
st p
aym
ents o
n cu
mul
ativ
e de
bt fr
om p
ast T
rust F
und
borrow
ing
from
the U
.S. T
reas
ury. B
egin
ning
in 2
011,
the am
ount
show
n is
the re
paym
ent o
f one
-yea
rob
ligat
ions
of t
he T
rust F
und,
whi
ch in
clud
e th
e pr
evio
us y
ear's
adv
ance
s fro
m th
e U
.S. T
reas
ury
and
appl
icab
le in
tere
st d
ue o
n th
ose ad
vanc
es, a
s req
uire
d un
der th
e EESA
.
d. In
clud
es le
gal a
nd in
vestig
ativ
e su
ppor
t fro
m th
e O
ffice
of t
he S
olicito
r an
d th
e O
ffice
of t
he In
spec
tor G
ener
al, s
ervi
ces p
rovi
ded
by th
e D
epar
tmen
t of t
he T
reas
ury, and
cos
ts fo
rth
e O
ffice
of A
dmin
istra
tive La
w Ju
dges
(OALJ
) and
the Ben
efits
Rev
iew
(BRB).
(NO
TE: O
ALJ
and
BRB cos
ts are
not
includ
ed fo
r an
y ot
her pr
ogra
m, b
ut can
not b
e se
para
tely
iden
tified
for C
oal M
ine W
orke
rs' C
ompe
nsat
ion.
)
Source:U
.S. D
epar
tmen
t of L
abor
201
4.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 61
not included in our national totals. Table B4 pro-vides information on both Part B and Part E of theEEOICPA, as amended.
Workers Exposed to Radiation The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990provides lump sum compensation payments to indi-viduals who contracted certain cancers and otherserious diseases as a result of exposure to radiationreleased during above ground nuclear weapons testsor during employment in underground uraniummines. The lump sum payments are specified in lawand range from $50,000 to $100,000. From thebeginning of the program through March 2012,25,283 claims were paid for a total of $1.7 billion,or roughly $66,198 a claim (U.S. DOJ 2012). Theprogram is financed with federal general revenuesand is not included in national totals in this report.
Table B5 shows cumulative payments under theRadiation Exposure Compensation Act since itsenactment in 1990.
Veterans of Military Service U.S. military personnel are covered by the federalveterans’ compensation program of the Departmentof Veterans Affairs, which provides cash benefits toveterans who sustained total or partial disabilitieswhile on active duty. In the fiscal year 2012, 3.5 mil-lion veterans were receiving monthly compensationpayments for service connected disabilities. Of these,47 percent of the veterans had a disability rating of30 percent or less, while the others had higher rateddisabilities. Total monthly payments for the disabledveterans and their dependents were $3.7 billion in2012, or about $44.3 billion on an annual basis
Table B4Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Part B and Part E Benefits and Costs, 2002-2012 (in thousands)
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Total Benefits Part B $369,173 $303,981 $275,727 $392,503 $502,636 $561,824 $605,338 $471,639 $803,456 $784,278 $868,248
Compensation Benefits 363,671 288,274 250,123 358,751 460,494 490,089 517,383 337,642 576,364 474,213 538,517Medical Benefitsa 5,502 15,707 25,604 33,752 42,142 71,735 87,955 133,997 227,092 310,065 329,731
Direct Administrative Costsb 69,020 65,941 94,158 106,818 104,872 107,417 92,075 51,377 53,102 51,228 49,577
Total Benefits Part Ec n/a n/a n/a 268,635 270,598 409,100 468,982 395,680 383,760 338,045 318,876
Compensation Benefits n/a n/a n/a 268,586 269,558 407,277 465,742 390,077 370,351 319,373 297,404Medical Benefitsd n/a n/a n/a 49 1,040 1,823 3,240 5,603 13,409 18,672 21,472
Direct Administrative Costsb n/a n/a n/a 39,295 55,088 61,671 59,152 68,146 74,622 74,189 72,259
a. Medical payments made for claimants eligible under Part B only and claimants eligible under both Part B and Part E.
b. Part B costs for 2002-08 include funding for the Department of Health and Human Services/National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's(DHHS/NIOSH) conduct of dose reconstructions and Special Exposure Cohort determinations. For 2002, these costs were $32.7 million; 2003, $26.8million; 2004, $51.7 million; 2005, $50.5 million; 2006, $58.6 million; 2007, $55.0 million; and 2008, $41.5 million. Beginning in 2009, these costsare a direct appropriation to DHHS/NIOSH. Part B costs for 2009-12 include funding for an Ombudsman position. For 2009, these costs were $0.1million; 2010, $0.4 million; 2011, $0.2 million; and 2012, $0.3 million. Part E costs for 2005-12 also include funding for an Ombudsman position. For2005 these costs were $0.3 million; 2006, $0.6 million; 2007, $0.8 million; 2008, $0.8 million; 2009, $0.7 million; 2010, $0.6 million; 2011, $0.8 mil-lion; and 2012, $0.8 million.
c. The Energy Part E benefit program was established in October 2004.
d. Medical payments made for claimants eligible under Part E only.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor 2014.
62 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
(U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2013).Veterans’ compensation is not included in our national estimates of workers’ compensation. TableB6 provides information on the Veterans’Compensation program. This program is somewhatsimilar to workers’ compensation in that it isfinanced by the employer (the federal government)and compensates for injuries or illness caused on thejob (the armed forces). It is different from otherworkers’ compensation programs in many respects.
With cash benefits of about $44.3 billion in 2012,veterans’ compensation is about 128 percent of thesize of total cash benefits in other workers’ compen-sation programs, which were $31.0 billion in 2012.Because it is large and qualitatively different fromother programs, veterans’ compensation benefits arenot included in national totals to measure trends inregular workers’ compensation programs.
Railroad Employees and MerchantSeamen Finally, federal laws specify employee benefits forrailroad workers involved in interstate commerce andmerchant seamen. The benefits are not workers’compensation benefits and are not included in ournational totals. Instead, these programs providehealth insurance and short-term and long-term cashbenefits for ill or injured workers whether or nottheir conditions are work related. Under federal laws,these workers also retain the right to bring tort suitsagainst their employers for negligence in the case ofwork related injuries or illness (Williams and Barth1973).
This report includes in national totals for workers’compensation those federal programs that arefinanced by employers and that are not otherwiseincluded in workers’ compensation benefits reportedby states in 2002 through 2012. The accompanyingtables provide detailed information on federallyadministered programs, including some that are notincluded in national totals in this report. Data earlierthan 2002 can be found in earlier reports.
Table B6Federal Veterans’ Compensation Program, Compensation Paid in Fiscal Year 2012(benefits in thousands)
Monthly ValueClass of Dependent Number (in thousands)
Veteran Recipients - total 3,536,802 $3,696,561
Veterans less than 30 percent disabled (no dependency benefit) 1,654,109 386,094.18Veterans 30 percent or more disabled 1,882,693 3,310,467
Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 2013.
Table B5Radiation Exposure Compensation Act,Benefits Paid as of March 29, 2012(benefits in thousands)
Claim Type # Claims Benefits
Downwinder 16,062 $803,070
Onsite Participant 1,816 130,836
Uranium Miner 5,649 564,175
Uranium Miller 1,460 146,000
Ore Transporter 296 29,600
TOTAL 25,283 $1,673,681
Source: U.S. Department of Justice 2012.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 63
Table C illustrates the benefit parameters which formthe basis for the data estimated in this report. Thetable is taken from the IAIABC (InternationalAssociation of Industrial Accident Boards andCommissions) and WCRI (Workers CompensationResearch Institute) joint publication of Workers’Compensation Laws (IAIABC-WCRI 2012). Thestate laws are as of January 2012.
The benefit parameters defined in this table portraythe workers’ compensation differences across states.The difference may lie in (a) when the first day ofdisability begins; (b) compensation that is includedin determining the “wage”; (c) periods over whichthe average wage is calculated; (d) caps on wagesearned by the injured worker; or (e) differences incalculation of compensation rate, etc. For each statethe table describes:
� The waiting period before a worker receivesbenefits.
� The minimum and maximum benefit pay-ments and length of benefit payments forTemporary Total Disability.
� The weekly payments and benefit limitationsfor Permanent Total Disability.
� The maximum weekly benefit and benefit limitations for Permanent Partial Disability.
� The maximum weekly benefit and benefit limitations for Death Benefits.
A point to be noted is that most states have provi-sions to waive the waiting period in certain cases,mostly related to the eventual duration of the disabil-ity. The value of lost wages not recompensed by aretroactive period are a significant cost to workersand a cost of workers’ compensation borne by one ofthe key identified stakeholders.
Appendix C: Workers’ Compensation under State Laws
64 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table C
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
Alabam
a3 days
21 days
$208.00
$755.00
Duration of
66 2/3% PIW
W$755.00
NoNo
$220.00
300
$755.00
500 we
eks
TTD dis
ability
Alaska
3 days
More than
$239.00
$1,085.00
Continu
e until
80% of the workers’
Depends u
pon
If found to no
Up to the
$950.00
No$1,085.00
12 ye
ars
28 days
emplo
yee is
spendable
year of in
jury.
longer b
e maximum
unscheduled
medica
lly stable
after-tax
Maximum
PTD
perm
anently and
TTD we
ekly
PPD
or re
leased
or NWW
benefit wo
uld
totally disa
bled
rate. B
enefits
to work
be the maximum
continu
eTT
D benefit in
until no
the year of in
jury
longer P
TD
or death
Arizo
na7 days
14 days
n/a
$623.28
Duration of
66 2/3% AMW
$625.05
NoNo
$703.14 for
Payable
for life
$625.05
None
disability
TTD
scheduled
unles
s rearra
nged
injuries
; for
by Industrial
unscheduled
Commiss
ioninjuries
, N/A
Arkansas
7 days
14 days
$20.00
$584.00
450
66 2/3% PIW
W
$584.00
Benefits
are for
There is a
$438.00
450 maximum
$584.00
Remarriage of
the len
gth of
limitation
for a
ll disa
bilityp
spouse, attain-
disability a
nd may
of the we
ekly
ment of age 18
be paid
for lifeg
amount but
of dependent
not the total
child or 2
5 if
amount
full-time stu
dent;
450-we
ek lim
it for p
artial
dependents
Califo
rnia
3 days
21 days
$151.57
$1,010.50
104a
2/3 of AWW,
$1,010.50
Lifetime
No$230/ $270
not applicable
$1,010.50
When paid in
subje
ct to minimum
full o
r up to
/maximum
rates
age 18, for life
to dependent
mino
rs
Colorado
3 scheduled
14 ca
lendar
none
$828.03
Duration of
66 2/3%
$828.03
Benefits
are for the
None
$260.59 is
400j
$828.03
18-21 if
days
days
TTD
PIWW
length of
set w
eekly
rate
dependent
disability
disability
for a
ll schedul-
is in school,
and may be
ed injuries
; remarriage
paid for life
$828.03 we
ekly
of a sp
ouse,
is maximum
or death of a
for calc
ulating
dependent
unscheduled
injuries
Connecticut
3 days
7 days
$233.60
$1,168.00
Duration of
75% of spendable
$1,168.00
None
None
$996.00
520
$1,168.00
None
TTD dis
ability
earning
s
Delaw
are
3 days
7 calen
dar
$207.35
$622.05
Unlim
ited
66 2/3% AWW up
$622.05
NoNo
$622.05
300
$622.05
When spouse
days
to the maximum
at
remarries o
r if
the date permanent
mino
r depen-
impairm
ent
dents reach 18
becomes fix
edyears o
f age or
25 if attending
accredited
higher learning
ins
titution
District of
3 days
14 days
$322.00
$1,288.00
500 we
eks for all
66 2/3% PIW
W$1,288.00
500 we
eks for all
The first
$1,288.00
500 we
ek lim
it$1,288.00
Colum
biadis
ability b
enefits
disability b
enefits
$75,000
for a
ll disa
bility
with ability
with ability to
in benefits
and wo
rker may
to petitio
n for
petition for a
n for d
eath or
petition for a
nan additio
nal
addition
al 167
PTD shall
addition
al 167
167 we
eks
weeks
be paid
by
weeks
the em
ployer/
insurer.
Amounts o
ver
$75,000 are
paid fro
m
death and
PTD Trust
Fund
Florida
7 days
22 days
$20 unles
s$803.00
104
66 2/3% PIW
W$803.00
Benefits
are payable
No$803.00
2 we
eks for each
$803.00
Maximum
wages a
re less
to age 75. If the
% of im
pairm
ent
payable
isthan $20,
injury o
ccurred after
from 1-10%
; $150,000
then full
age 70, benefits are
3 we
eks from
wages
payable
during
11-15%
; 4 weeks
continu
ance of
from 16-20%;
PTD not to exceed
and 6 we
eks for
5 years follow
ing
each ra
ting over
determ
ination of
21%
PTD
Georgia
7 days
21 days
$50.00
$500.00
400 we
eks u
n-
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not
$500.00
300
$500.00
$150,000 for
less c
atastro
phic
applicable
surviving
injury
spouse with no
dependents
Hawa
ii3 days
None
$187.00
$747.00
Duration of
66 2/3% PIW
W$747.00
NoNo
$747.00
312
$747.00
312 we
eks
TTD dis
ability
Idaho
5 days
TTD
$99.15
$594.90
None. T
TD
67% of A
WW
$594.90
NoWeekly
rate may
55% of the
500
60% of current
500 we
eks
exceeds
continu
es while
change after
AWW at the
average sta
te
for spouse
2 we
eks
in the period
the first 52 weeks
time of injury
wage or
of re
covery.
of TTD
and
$396.60
each ye
ar
weekly -2012
thereafter o
nJanuary 1
based
on the inc
rease
in the AS
WW
Dea
th B
enefits, Jan
12
Perm
anen
t Partial
Disab
ility, J
an 12
Perm
anen
t Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Tempo
rary Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Waiting
Period, Jan
12
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 65
Table C
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
Alabam
a3 days
21 days
$208.00
$755.00
Duration of
66 2/3% PIW
W$755.00
NoNo
$220.00
300
$755.00
500 we
eks
TTD dis
ability
Alaska
3 days
More than
$239.00
$1,085.00
Continu
e until
80% of the workers’
Depends u
pon
If found to no
Up to the
$950.00
No$1,085.00
12 ye
ars
28 days
emplo
yee is
spendable
year of in
jury.
longer b
e maximum
unscheduled
medica
lly stable
after-tax
Maximum
PTD
perm
anently and
TTD we
ekly
PPD
or re
leased
or NWW
benefit wo
uld
totally disa
bled
rate. B
enefits
to work
be the maximum
continu
eTT
D benefit in
until no
the year of in
jury
longer P
TD
or death
Arizo
na7 days
14 days
n/a
$623.28
Duration of
66 2/3% AMW
$625.05
NoNo
$703.14 for
Payable
for life
$625.05
None
disability
TTD
scheduled
unles
s rearra
nged
injuries
; for
by Industrial
unscheduled
Commiss
ioninjuries
, N/A
Arkansas
7 days
14 days
$20.00
$584.00
450
66 2/3% PIW
W
$584.00
Benefits
are for
There is a
$438.00
450 maximum
$584.00
Remarriage of
the len
gth of
limitation
for a
ll disa
bilityp
spouse, attain-
disability a
nd may
of the we
ekly
ment of age 18
be paid
for lifeg
amount but
of dependent
not the total
child or 2
5 if
amount
full-time stu
dent;
450-we
ek lim
it for p
artial
dependents
Califo
rnia
3 days
21 days
$151.57
$1,010.50
104a
2/3 of AWW,
$1,010.50
Lifetime
No$230/ $270
not applicable
$1,010.50
When paid in
subje
ct to minimum
full o
r up to
/maximum
rates
age 18, for life
to dependent
mino
rs
Colorado
3 scheduled
14 ca
lendar
none
$828.03
Duration of
66 2/3%
$828.03
Benefits
are for the
None
$260.59 is
400j
$828.03
18-21 if
days
days
TTD
PIWW
length of
set w
eekly
rate
dependent
disability
disability
for a
ll schedul-
is in school,
and may be
ed injuries
; remarriage
paid for life
$828.03 we
ekly
of a sp
ouse,
is maximum
or death of a
for calc
ulating
dependent
unscheduled
injuries
Connecticut
3 days
7 days
$233.60
$1,168.00
Duration of
75% of spendable
$1,168.00
None
None
$996.00
520
$1,168.00
None
TTD dis
ability
earning
s
Delaw
are
3 days
7 calen
dar
$207.35
$622.05
Unlim
ited
66 2/3% AWW up
$622.05
NoNo
$622.05
300
$622.05
When spouse
days
to the maximum
at
remarries o
r if
the date permanent
mino
r depen-
impairm
ent
dents reach 18
becomes fix
edyears o
f age or
25 if attending
accredited
higher learning
ins
titution
District of
3 days
14 days
$322.00
$1,288.00
500 we
eks for all
66 2/3% PIW
W$1,288.00
500 we
eks for all
The first
$1,288.00
500 we
ek lim
it$1,288.00
Colum
biadis
ability b
enefits
disability b
enefits
$75,000
for a
ll disa
bility
with ability
with ability to
in benefits
and wo
rker may
to petitio
n for
petition for a
n for d
eath or
petition for a
nan additio
nal
addition
al 167
PTD shall
addition
al 167
167 we
eks
weeks
be paid
by
weeks
the em
ployer/
insurer.
Amounts o
ver
$75,000 are
paid fro
m
death and
PTD Trust
Fund
Florida
7 days
22 days
$20 unles
s$803.00
104
66 2/3% PIW
W$803.00
Benefits
are payable
No$803.00
2 we
eks for each
$803.00
Maximum
wages a
re less
to age 75. If the
% of im
pairm
ent
payable
isthan $20,
injury o
ccurred after
from 1-10%
; $150,000
then full
age 70, benefits are
3 we
eks from
wages
payable
during
11-15%
; 4 weeks
continu
ance of
from 16-20%;
PTD not to exceed
and 6 we
eks for
5 years follow
ing
each ra
ting over
determ
ination of
21%
PTD
Georgia
7 days
21 days
$50.00
$500.00
400 we
eks u
n-
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not
$500.00
300
$500.00
$150,000 for
less c
atastro
phic
applicable
surviving
injury
spouse with no
dependents
Hawa
ii3 days
None
$187.00
$747.00
Duration of
66 2/3% PIW
W$747.00
NoNo
$747.00
312
$747.00
312 we
eks
TTD dis
ability
Idaho
5 days
TTD
$99.15
$594.90
None. T
TD
67% of A
WW
$594.90
NoWeekly
rate may
55% of the
500
60% of current
500 we
eks
exceeds
continu
es while
change after
AWW at the
average sta
te
for spouse
2 we
eks
in the period
the first 52 weeks
time of injury
wage or
of re
covery.
of TTD
and
$396.60
each ye
ar
weekly -2012
thereafter o
nJanuary 1
based
on the inc
rease
in the AS
WW
66 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table C continued
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
Illinois
3 days
14 ca
lendar
$220.00
$1,261.41
Duration of
66 2/3% AWW
$1,261.41
NoNo
$695.78
500
$1,261.41
$500,000 or
days
TTD dis
ability
25 ye
ars
India
na7 days
21 days
$75.00
$650.00
500
66 2/3% PIW
W$650.00
500 we
eks
Yes
Not applicable
100%
or 5
00$650.00
500 we
eks
Iowa
3 days
14 days
none
$1,457.00
Benefits
are for
80% of the worker's
$1,457.00
NoNo
$1,340.00
500
$1,457.00
None
length of disa
bility
spendable
after tax
and maybe paid
or NWW
for life
Kansas
7 days
21 days
$25.00
$555.00
225 to 415 weeks
66 2/3% AWW
$555.00
Benefits
are for the
Yes
$555.00
415 we
eks b
ut
$555.00
$300,000
depending
on
length of disa
bility
the first 15 weeks
type of injury-als
o and may be paid
does not co
unt
maybe a lim
itation
for life or u
ntil
towa
rd this
of $130,000
maximum
of
maximum
or $155,000 for a
ll$155,000 is
indem
nity b
ene-
reached.
fits dependin
gon types
of benefit p
aid.
Kentucky
7 days
14 ca
lendar
$147.24
$736.19
Duration of disa
bil-
66 2/3% PIW
W$736.19
No100%
SAW
W
$552.13
425 we
eks if
$368.11 for
Age 18 (2
2 if
days
ity or u
ntil receip
tfor inju
ry ye
arrating is 50% or
spouses; 552.13
(in sc
hool
of Social Security
less; 520 we
eks
for spouse and
old age and
if rating
is
child
survivo
r benefits
over 50%
Louis
iana
7 days
6 we
eks
$154 or
$577.00
Duration of
66 2/3% PIW
W$577.00
Benefits
are for the
None
$577.00
520
$577.00
Spouse plus
actual wa
geTT
D dis
ability
length of disa
bility
2 children or
which
ever is
and may be paid
3 children
less
for life
Main
e7 days
14 ca
lendar
none
$634.13
520
80% of the worker's
$634.13
Benefits
are for the
No$634.13
520 we
eks for the
$634.13
500 we
eks o
r days
spendable
after
length of disa
bility
duration of
until age 18
tax o
r NWW
and may be paid
disability if P
I for children
for life
rating is greater
than a threshold
of approxim
ately
13.4%
Maryla
nd3 days
14 days
$50 or
$965.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$965.00
No$45,000
$724.00
None
$965.00
144 months o
rem
ployee's
disability
except that
on the date of
AWW
benefit shall
what would have
be paid
for
been the 70th
the period that
birthday o
f the
the covered
deceased
emplo
yee is
emplo
yee,
perm
anently
provide
d that
totally disa
bled
a minimum
of 5 ye
ars o
f death benefits
has b
een paid
Massachu-
5 days
21 days
$227.16
$1,135.82
156
66 2/3% PIW
W$1,135.82
NoNo
$1,135.82
Not applicable
$1,000.00
None
setts
Mich
igan
7 days
14 ca
lendar
$205.84
$742.00
Duration of TTD
80% of the worker's
$746.00
800 we
eks c
onclu
- No
neNo
t applicable
Not applicable
$746.00
500 we
eks
days
disability
spendable
after tax
sive paym
ent w
ith
or NWW
factu
al determ
i- nation therefater
Minn
esota
3 days
10 days
$130 or the
$850.00
130
66 2/3% PIW
W$850.00
NoNo
$850.00
No$850.00
Benefit ends
worker's
after 1
0 years o
ractual wa
ge,
10 ye
ars a
fter
which
ever
the las
t child
is les
sis no longer
dependent,
minimum
pay-
able is $60,000
Miss
issipp
i5 days
14 days
$25.00
$436.68
450
66 2/3% PIW
W$436.68
450 we
eks o
r until
$196,506.00
$436.68
450
$436.68
450 we
eks;
total com
pensation
remarriage for
paid equals
spouse; age 18-
$196,506
23 for child
Miss
ouri
3 days
14 days
$40.00
$811.73
400
66 2/3% PIW
W$811.73
NoNo
ne$425.19
400
$811.73
m
Montana
32 hours or 4
If dis
-none
$649.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$649.00
Payable
No
ne$324.50
400
$649.00
Depends o
n days, w
hich-
ability is
disability
until retirem
ent
extent of
ever is less
21 days
dependency
or longer
at tim
e of
injury/d
eath
Nebraska
7 days
6 we
eks
$49 or actu
al $710.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$710.00
Payable
for the
None
$710.00
300
$710.00
None
wage, if less
disability
length of disa
bility
and may be for life
Nevada
5 days
5 consecu-
no minimum
$789.74
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% pre-injury
$789.74
NoPe
r maximum
$789.74
PPD benefits
$789.74
For a
child
tive days
disability
AMW
compensation
paid for 5
years o
rat 18 or 22 if
or 5 cu
mu-
limit a
ndto age 70, whic
h-a full-time
lative
days
form
ulaever is later
student
within a 20
day p
eriod
New
3 days
14 days
$263.40
$1,317.00
Duration of Total
60 %
PIW
W$1,317.00
Payable
for the
None
$1,317.00
350 we
eks for a
$1,317.00
18 or 25 if a
Hampshire
disability
length of disa
bility
whole
person
full-time
and may be for life
award
student
Dea
th B
enefits, Jan
12
Perm
anen
t Partial
Disab
ility, J
an 12
Perm
anen
t Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Tempo
rary Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Waiting
Period, Jan
12
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 67
Table C continued
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
Illinois
3 days
14 ca
lendar
$220.00
$1,261.41
Duration of
66 2/3% AWW
$1,261.41
NoNo
$695.78
500
$1,261.41
$500,000 or
days
TTD dis
ability
25 ye
ars
India
na7 days
21 days
$75.00
$650.00
500
66 2/3% PIW
W$650.00
500 we
eks
Yes
Not applicable
100%
or 5
00$650.00
500 we
eks
Iowa
3 days
14 days
none
$1,457.00
Benefits
are for
80% of the worker's
$1,457.00
NoNo
$1,340.00
500
$1,457.00
None
length of disa
bility
spendable
after tax
and maybe paid
or NWW
for life
Kansas
7 days
21 days
$25.00
$555.00
225 to 415 weeks
66 2/3% AWW
$555.00
Benefits
are for the
Yes
$555.00
415 we
eks b
ut
$555.00
$300,000
depending
on
length of disa
bility
the first 15 weeks
type of injury-als
o and may be paid
does not co
unt
maybe a lim
itation
for life or u
ntil
towa
rd this
of $130,000
maximum
of
maximum
or $155,000 for a
ll$155,000 is
indem
nity b
ene-
reached.
fits dependin
gon types
of benefit p
aid.
Kentucky
7 days
14 ca
lendar
$147.24
$736.19
Duration of disa
bil-
66 2/3% PIW
W$736.19
No100%
SAW
W
$552.13
425 we
eks if
$368.11 for
Age 18 (2
2 if
days
ity or u
ntil receip
tfor inju
ry ye
arrating is 50% or
spouses; 552.13
(in sc
hool
of Social Security
less; 520 we
eks
for spouse and
old age and
if rating
is
child
survivo
r benefits
over 50%
Louis
iana
7 days
6 we
eks
$154 or
$577.00
Duration of
66 2/3% PIW
W$577.00
Benefits
are for the
None
$577.00
520
$577.00
Spouse plus
actual wa
geTT
D dis
ability
length of disa
bility
2 children or
which
ever is
and may be paid
3 children
less
for life
Main
e7 days
14 ca
lendar
none
$634.13
520
80% of the worker's
$634.13
Benefits
are for the
No$634.13
520 we
eks for the
$634.13
500 we
eks o
r days
spendable
after
length of disa
bility
duration of
until age 18
tax o
r NWW
and may be paid
disability if P
I for children
for life
rating is greater
than a threshold
of approxim
ately
13.4%
Maryla
nd3 days
14 days
$50 or
$965.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$965.00
No$45,000
$724.00
None
$965.00
144 months o
rem
ployee's
disability
except that
on the date of
AWW
benefit shall
what would have
be paid
for
been the 70th
the period that
birthday o
f the
the covered
deceased
emplo
yee is
emplo
yee,
perm
anently
provide
d that
totally disa
bled
a minimum
of 5 ye
ars o
f death benefits
has b
een paid
Massachu-
5 days
21 days
$227.16
$1,135.82
156
66 2/3% PIW
W$1,135.82
NoNo
$1,135.82
Not applicable
$1,000.00
None
setts
Mich
igan
7 days
14 ca
lendar
$205.84
$742.00
Duration of TTD
80% of the worker's
$746.00
800 we
eks c
onclu
- No
neNo
t applicable
Not applicable
$746.00
500 we
eks
days
disability
spendable
after tax
sive paym
ent w
ith
or NWW
factu
al determ
i- nation therefater
Minn
esota
3 days
10 days
$130 or the
$850.00
130
66 2/3% PIW
W$850.00
NoNo
$850.00
No$850.00
Benefit ends
worker's
after 1
0 years o
ractual wa
ge,
10 ye
ars a
fter
which
ever
the las
t child
is les
sis no longer
dependent,
minimum
pay-
able is $60,000
Miss
issipp
i5 days
14 days
$25.00
$436.68
450
66 2/3% PIW
W$436.68
450 we
eks o
r until
$196,506.00
$436.68
450
$436.68
450 we
eks;
total com
pensation
remarriage for
paid equals
spouse; age 18-
$196,506
23 for child
Miss
ouri
3 days
14 days
$40.00
$811.73
400
66 2/3% PIW
W$811.73
NoNo
ne$425.19
400
$811.73
m
Montana
32 hours or 4
If dis
-none
$649.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$649.00
Payable
No
ne$324.50
400
$649.00
Depends o
n days, w
hich-
ability is
disability
until retirem
ent
extent of
ever is less
21 days
dependency
or longer
at tim
e of
injury/d
eath
Nebraska
7 days
6 we
eks
$49 or actu
al $710.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$710.00
Payable
for the
None
$710.00
300
$710.00
None
wage, if less
disability
length of disa
bility
and may be for life
Nevada
5 days
5 consecu-
no minimum
$789.74
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% pre-injury
$789.74
NoPe
r maximum
$789.74
PPD benefits
$789.74
For a
child
tive days
disability
AMW
compensation
paid for 5
years o
rat 18 or 22 if
or 5 cu
mu-
limit a
ndto age 70, whic
h-a full-time
lative
days
form
ulaever is later
student
within a 20
day p
eriod
New
3 days
14 days
$263.40
$1,317.00
Duration of Total
60 %
PIW
W$1,317.00
Payable
for the
None
$1,317.00
350 we
eks for a
$1,317.00
18 or 25 if a
Hampshire
disability
length of disa
bility
whole
person
full-time
and may be for life
award
student
68 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table C continued
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
New Jersey
7 days
7 calendar
$216.00
$810.00
400
70% of actual
$810.00
Payable for the
None
$810.00
600
$810.00
days
wage at the time
length of disa
bility
of injury
and may be for life
New
7 days
4 we
eks
$36.00
$733.16
700
66 2/3% PIW
W$733.16
Payable for the
None
$733.16
500 we
eks if the
$733.16
100%
of the
Mexico
length of disa
bility
length of disa
bility
rating is less than
SAWW for
and may be for life
80%, 700 weeks if
700 we
eks
rating is greater
New Yo
rk7 days
More than
$100, unle
ss$772.96
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$772.96
No. B
enefits are
The maximum
$772.96
Not if date
$772.96
n
14 days
claimant's
disability
payable for the
the injured
of accident or
wages less
length of disa
bility
wo
rker can
disability
is before
than $100,
which
is almost
receive
is 2/3
March 13, 2007;
then claim
ant
alwa
ys for life of
of the wo
rker's
525 we
eks if date
receive
sthe cla
imant
AWW at the
of accident or
full w
ages
time of the
disability
is on or
injury up to
after M
arch 13,
the we
ekly max-
2007
imum
benefit
in place at the
time of injury
North
7 days
21 days
$30.00
$862.00
Benefit lim
its have
66 2/3% PIW
W$864.00
Benefit lim
its have
Benefit lim
its$862 for
300
$862.00
500 we
ekso
Carolina
been changed
been changed to 500
have been
scheduled
to 500
weeks and can be changed to 500
injuries
weeks and can
extended by Co
m-
weeks and can
be extended by
miss
ion if em
ployee
be extended by
Commiss
ion
has sustained a
Commiss
ion if
if em
ployee has
total lo
ss of w
age-
employee has
sustained a total -
earning capacity
sustained a total
loss of w
age
loss of w
age-
earning capacity
earning capacity
North
5 days
5 days
$435.00
$905.00
104
66 2/3% PIW
W$905.00
Payable until
NoPP
I rate
100%
$905.00
$300,000
Dakota
retirem
ent at w
hich
multiplied by
impairm
ent
or death
time benefits may
the maximum
based on lump
switch to ABP
r .body im
pair-
sum payment
ment percentage
of 100%. P
aid
as lump sum
Ohio
7 days
14 calendar
269.67. H
ow-
$809.00
As long as
72% PIW
We
$809.00
NoNo
$269.97
200
$809.00
None
days
ever if AW
W
disability
lasts
is below
mini-
mum
, the TDD
is 100%
of
of the AW
W
Okla
homa
3 days
Waiting
$30 or actu
al$735.00
156
70% PIW
W$735.00
Payable for the
No$323.00
500
$735.00
When
period is
wage if les
slength of disa
bility
dependency
not paid
and may be for life
ends
Oregon
3 days
14 days
Not le
ss than
$1,120.55
Not applicable
66 2/3% PIW
W$842.52
Lifetim
e plus
Maximum
not applicable
$322,929.15
$1,123.33
None
$50 or 90%
benefits to
weekly
of the wo
rk-
surviving
$842.52
er's AW
W;
spouse
which
ever is
and children
less
Pennsylva
nia
7 days
14 calendar
50% of
$848.00
Duration of TTD
No
t applicable q
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
$858.00
Not
days
statewide
disability
subject
applica
ble
AWW or 9
0%to conversion
of worker's
to partial
AWW, w
hich-
benefits at
ever is lowe
r.104 we
eksb
Rhode
3 days
None
none
$972 max as
Duration of TTD
75% of w
orker's
$972 as
Payable for the
None
$180.00
500
$972, as
None
Island
of 9/1/11
disability
spendable or after
of 9/1/11
length of disa
bility
of 9/1/11
tax or NWW
and may be for life
South
7 days
More than
$75 if w
ages
$704.92
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W100%
of
500 we
eks
500 we
eks
Depends on
340
$689.71
500 we
eks
Carolina
14 days
are >$75;
disability
with a
SAWW
scheduled
otherwise
,maximum
body part
comp rate is
of 500 weeks
equal to
wa
ges
South
7 days
7 calendar
$324.00
$648.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
Wf
$648.00
For length of
None
$648.00
312
$648.00
None
Dakota
days
disability
disability
and can be
for life
Tennessee
7 days
14 days
$118.35
$867.90
Duration of TTD
for
66 2/3% PIW
W$789.00
Until So
cial S
ecurity
No$789.00
400
$789.00
None
physica
l injuries;
eligibility age or
104 we
eks for
260 we
eks wh
ere
psychological
the date
injuries; 104
of injury is on or
weeks after the
after a
ge 60
commencement of
pain managem
ent
Texas
7 days
2 we
eks
$118.00
$787.00
105c
75% AWW
$787.00
NoNo
$551.00
300
$787.00
Minimum
of
364 we
eks
Dea
th B
enefits, Jan
12
Perm
anen
t Partial
Disab
ility, J
an 12
Perm
anen
t Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Tempo
rary Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Waiting
Period, Jan
12
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 69
Table C continued
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
New Jersey
7 days
7 calendar
$216.00
$810.00
400
70% of actual
$810.00
Payable for the
None
$810.00
600
$810.00
days
wage at the time
length of disa
bility
of injury
and may be for life
New
7 days
4 we
eks
$36.00
$733.16
700
66 2/3% PIW
W$733.16
Payable for the
None
$733.16
500 we
eks if the
$733.16
100%
of the
Mexico
length of disa
bility
length of disa
bility
rating is less than
SAWW for
and may be for life
80%, 700 weeks if
700 we
eks
rating is greater
New Yo
rk7 days
More than
$100, unle
ss$772.96
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$772.96
No. B
enefits are
The maximum
$772.96
Not if date
$772.96
n
14 days
claimant's
disability
payable for the
the injured
of accident or
wages less
length of disa
bility
wo
rker can
disability
is before
than $100,
which
is almost
receive
is 2/3
March 13, 2007;
then claim
ant
alwa
ys for life of
of the wo
rker's
525 we
eks if date
receive
sthe cla
imant
AWW at the
of accident or
full w
ages
time of the
disability
is on or
injury up to
after M
arch 13,
the we
ekly max-
2007
imum
benefit
in place at the
time of injury
North
7 days
21 days
$30.00
$862.00
Benefit lim
its have
66 2/3% PIW
W$864.00
Benefit lim
its have
Benefit lim
its$862 for
300
$862.00
500 we
ekso
Carolina
been changed
been changed to 500
have been
scheduled
to 500
weeks and can be changed to 500
injuries
weeks and can
extended by Co
m-
weeks and can
be extended by
miss
ion if em
ployee
be extended by
Commiss
ion
has sustained a
Commiss
ion if
if em
ployee has
total lo
ss of w
age-
employee has
sustained a total -
earning capacity
sustained a total
loss of w
age
loss of w
age-
earning capacity
earning capacity
North
5 days
5 days
$435.00
$905.00
104
66 2/3% PIW
W$905.00
Payable until
NoPP
I rate
100%
$905.00
$300,000
Dakota
retirem
ent at w
hich
multiplied by
impairm
ent
or death
time benefits may
the maximum
based on lump
switch to ABP
r .body im
pair-
sum payment
ment percentage
of 100%. P
aid
as lump sum
Ohio
7 days
14 calendar
269.67. H
ow-
$809.00
As long as
72% PIW
We
$809.00
NoNo
$269.97
200
$809.00
None
days
ever if AW
W
disability
lasts
is below
mini-
mum
, the TDD
is 100%
of
of the AW
W
Okla
homa
3 days
Waiting
$30 or actu
al$735.00
156
70% PIW
W$735.00
Payable for the
No$323.00
500
$735.00
When
period is
wage if les
slength of disa
bility
dependency
not paid
and may be for life
ends
Oregon
3 days
14 days
Not le
ss than
$1,120.55
Not applicable
66 2/3% PIW
W$842.52
Lifetim
e plus
Maximum
not applicable
$322,929.15
$1,123.33
None
$50 or 90%
benefits to
weekly
of the wo
rk-
surviving
$842.52
er's AW
W;
spouse
which
ever is
and children
less
Pennsylva
nia
7 days
14 calendar
50% of
$848.00
Duration of TTD
No
t applicable q
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
Not applicable
$858.00
Not
days
statewide
disability
subject
applica
ble
AWW or 9
0%to conversion
of worker's
to partial
AWW, w
hich-
benefits at
ever is lowe
r.104 we
eksb
Rhode
3 days
None
none
$972 max as
Duration of TTD
75% of w
orker's
$972 as
Payable for the
None
$180.00
500
$972, as
None
Island
of 9/1/11
disability
spendable or after
of 9/1/11
length of disa
bility
of 9/1/11
tax or NWW
and may be for life
South
7 days
More than
$75 if w
ages
$704.92
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W100%
of
500 we
eks
500 we
eks
Depends on
340
$689.71
500 we
eks
Carolina
14 days
are >$75;
disability
with a
SAWW
scheduled
otherwise
,maximum
body part
comp rate is
of 500 weeks
equal to
wa
ges
South
7 days
7 calendar
$324.00
$648.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
Wf
$648.00
For length of
None
$648.00
312
$648.00
None
Dakota
days
disability
disability
and can be
for life
Tennessee
7 days
14 days
$118.35
$867.90
Duration of TTD
for
66 2/3% PIW
W$789.00
Until So
cial S
ecurity
No$789.00
400
$789.00
None
physica
l injuries;
eligibility age or
104 we
eks for
260 we
eks wh
ere
psychological
the date
injuries; 104
of injury is on or
weeks after the
after a
ge 60
commencement of
pain managem
ent
Texas
7 days
2 we
eks
$118.00
$787.00
105c
75% AWW
$787.00
NoNo
$551.00
300
$787.00
Minimum
of
364 we
eks
70 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
Table C continued
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
Utah
3 days
14 calendar
$45.00
$747.00
312
66 2/3% PIW
W$635.00
PTD benefits are
No$498.00
312
$635.00
312 we
eks
days
awarded for life,
of com
bined
but P
TD status
benefits ex-
may be reexam
ined
clucin
g PT
Dby submitting em
- ployee to re
ason-
able medica
levaluations;
rehabilita
tion
and retra
ining
efforts; disc
losure
of Federal Income
Tax returns
Verm
ont
3 days
10 days
$374.00
$1,122.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$1,122.00
For d
uration of
No$1,122.00
405 we
eks for
$1,122.00
Varies with
disability
; insurer
total disa
bility
-non-spinal;
dependent
must review
can be for life
550 we
eks
after 2
years
spinal
Virginia
7 days
3 we
eks
$226.25
$905.00
500
66 2/3% PIW
W$905.00
Can be lifetime
Applica
ble
$905.00
None
$905.00
500 we
eks
comp. ra
te
Washington
3 days
14 calendar
15% of the
$1,100.26 for
Duration of TTD
De
pends on the
$1,100.26 for
For length of
There is a
$1100.26 for
$183,900.42
$1,123.78
18th birthday or
days
statewide
DOI prior to
disability
option chosen
DOI prior to
disability
and
maximum
DO
I prior to
23rd birthday
AMW; 100%
7/1/11;
by employee
7/1/11;
can be for life
paym
ent for
7/1/11;
when enrolled
of the wo
rkers'
$1,123.78 for
$1,123.78 for
lump sums
$1123.78 for
in school, or
gross m
onthly
DOI 7/1/11 -
DOI 7/1/11 -
only, up to
DOI 7/1/11 -
disabled
wage; m
ini-
6/30/12
6/30/12
$8,500
6/30/12
mum
time los
srate effective
prior to
July 2, 2008
West
3 days
7 con-
Federal
For F
Y 2012,
104
66 2/3% PIW
W
$676.61
Payable until
NoAs
of F
Y No
neAs
of F
Y De
ath or
Virginia
secutive
minimum
it is $711.38
not to
age 70
2012, it is
2012, the
remarriage
days
wage
on a weekly
exceed 100%
$497.97 on a
maximum
of widow
, basis
of the AW
W in
weekly basis
weekly benefit
majority of
West V
irginia
is $711.38
children
Wisc
onsin
3 days
7 non-
TTD rate
$854.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$854.00
For length of
No$302.00
$1,000
$854.00
$256,200
consecutive
maybe se
t as
disability
disability
and can
days
restricted
be for life
part-tim
e at
100%
of actu
alearning
s.
Wyoming
3 days
8 days
none
$815.00
24 months
66 2/3% actual
$543.33
NoNo
None
None
Benefits paid
None
monthly wa
ge
monthly
unless they earn
less than 73%
of
the SW
AMW
and then it is 92%
of their a
ctual
monthly wa
ges
a T
here
are
som
e lim
ited
exce
ptio
ns w
here
ben
efits
can
be pa
id fo
r 24
0 w
eeks
. b
Disa
bilit
y un
der PA
law
s mea
ns lo
ss o
f ear
ning
pow
er. P
A la
w allo
ws e
mpl
oyer
/ins
urer
to re
ques
t "Im
pairm
ent R
atin
g Exa
min
atio
n" after
em
ploy
ee h
as re
ceiv
ed 1
04 w
eeks
of f
ull b
enef
it pa
ymen
ts.
If IRE sh
ows l
ess t
han
50%
impa
irm
ent b
ased
on
AM
A G
uide
s the
n be
nefit
s are
reclas
sified
as p
artia
l disa
bilit
y co
mpe
nsat
ion
and
are su
bjec
t to
a 50
0-w
eek
cap.
c An
exce
ptio
n to
this
amou
nt cou
ld b
e m
ade w
hen
an ext
ensio
n of
MM
I ba
sed
on sp
inal su
rger
y is
appr
oved
by
the D
ivisi
on.
dFo
r pu
rpos
es o
f thi
s tab
le, "
cata
stro
phic in
jury
" m
eans
any
inju
ry w
hich
is o
ne o
f the
follo
win
g: (1
) Spi
nal c
ord
inju
ry in
volv
ing
seve
re p
aralys
is of
an
arm
, a le
g, o
r th
e trun
k; (2
) Am
puta
tion
of an
arm
, aha
nd, a
foot
, or a leg
invo
lvin
g th
e ef
fect
ive lo
ss o
f use
of t
hat a
ppen
dage
; (3)
Sev
ere br
ain
or clo
sed
head
inju
ry as e
vide
nced
by:
(A) S
ever
e se
nsor
y or
mot
or d
istur
banc
e; (B
) Sev
ere co
mm
unicat
ion
distur
-ba
nce; (C
) Sev
ere co
mpl
ex in
tegr
ated
dist
urba
nces
of c
ereb
ral f
unct
ion;
(D) S
ever
e di
stur
banc
es o
f con
scio
usne
ss; (
E) S
ever
e ep
isodi
c ne
urol
ogical d
isord
ers;
or (F
) Oth
er con
ditio
ns at l
east as s
ever
e in
na-
ture
as a
ny con
ditio
n pr
ovid
ed in
subp
arag
raph
s (A) t
hrou
gh (E
) of t
his p
arag
raph
; (4)
Sec
ond
or th
ird d
egre
e bu
rns o
ver 25
per
cent
of t
he b
ody
as a w
hole o
r th
ird d
egre
e bu
rns t
o 5
perc
ent o
r m
ore of
the
face
and
han
ds; (
5) T
otal o
r in
dustrial b
lindn
ess;
(6) A
ny o
ther
inju
ry o
f a n
atur
e an
d se
verity
that
pre
vent
s an
empl
oyee
from
being
abl
e to
per
form
his
or h
er p
rior
wor
k an
d an
y w
ork
avai
labl
e in
subs
tan-
tial n
umbe
rs w
ithin
the na
tiona
l eco
nom
y fo
r w
hich
such
em
ploy
ee is
oth
erw
ise q
ualif
ied,
pro
vide
d, h
owev
er, t
hat t
he in
jury
has
not
alre
ady
been
acc
epte
d as
a cat
astrop
hic in
jury
by
the em
ploy
er and
the
auth
orized
trea
ting
phys
icia
n ha
s relea
sed
the em
ploy
ee to
retu
rn.
e 72
% o
f the
wor
kers' p
re-in
jury
wee
kly
wag
e fo
r th
e fir
st 1
2 w
eeks
and
then
66.
67%
ther
eafter
. f
If th
e w
eekl
y w
age is
belo
w 5
0% o
f the
SAW
W th
e ca
lcul
atio
n is
wag
es, l
ess i
ncom
e ta
x an
d so
cial se
curity
.g
TT
D cea
ses d
urin
g th
e tim
e pe
riod
an
empl
oyee
refu
ses a
suita
ble jo
b of
fer.
hAll
earn
ed in
com
e of
the in
jure
d w
orke
r an
d all e
mpl
oym
ent b
ased
retir
emen
t inc
ome is
cons
ider
ed in
the ca
lcul
atio
n of
ext
ende
d be
nefit
s.i
KS
has a
cap
of $
125,
000
for Pe
rman
ent T
otal and
that
cap
includ
es any
TT
D p
aid.
j To
tal T
TD
and
PPD
for sc
hedu
led
and
unsc
hedu
led
cann
ot b
e gr
eate
r th
an $
75,0
00 if
the im
pairm
ent r
atin
g is
less th
an 2
5% and
$15
0,00
0 if
mor
e th
an 2
5%.
kW
orke
rs' C
ompe
nsat
ion
bene
fit p
rovi
sions
app
ly to
inju
ry d
ates
on
and
afte
r Jul
y 1,
200
8 to
dist
ingu
ish th
em fr
om th
e be
nefit
leve
ls ap
plicab
le to
mos
t of t
he calen
dar y
ear p
aym
ents sh
own
thro
ugh
the re
port.
lIf to
tal a
mou
nt o
f wee
kly
com
pens
atio
n is
less th
an $
7.00
per
wee
k.m
Dep
ende
ncy
bene
fits e
nd at v
ario
us ti
mes
dep
endi
ng o
n leve
l of d
epen
denc
y. S
pous
e-lif
etim
e or
unt
il re
mar
riag
e. C
hild
ren-
until
they
mee
t the
age
thre
shol
d. F
or cas
es th
at fa
ll in
the Sc
hoem
ehl w
indo
w(J
an 9
, 200
7- Ju
n 26
, 200
8), s
urvi
ving
dep
ende
nts c
an claim
ben
efits
from
SIF
instea
d of
dec
ease
d em
ploy
ee.
nBen
efits
end
for sp
ouse
on
rem
arriag
e or
upo
n de
ath
and
end
for ch
ildre
n up
on tu
rnin
g 18
, or if
still
in sc
hool
, 23,
if n
ot b
lind
or p
hysic
ally
disa
bled
. If b
lind
or p
hysic
ally
disa
bled
then
the be
nefit
s end
whe
n th
e bl
indn
ess o
r ph
ysical d
isabi
lity
ends
, after
age
18
or 2
3 as
app
ropr
iate
. If b
enef
its p
aid
to d
epen
dent
par
ents o
r gr
andp
aren
ts, t
hey
end
upon
dea
th. F
or b
roth
ers,
siste
rs o
r gr
andc
hild
ren
at age
18,
or, i
f in
scho
ol, 2
3.o
Wid
ow/W
idow
er m
ay re
ceiv
e lif
etim
e pa
ymen
ts if
he or
she is
tota
lly d
isabl
ed at t
he d
ate of
dec
eden
ts's
deat
h an
d ch
ild w
ill re
ceiv
e w
eekl
y pa
ymen
ts fo
r 40
0 w
eeks
or un
til age
18,
whi
chev
er is
long
er.
pExc
ept f
or P
TD
whi
ch is
pay
able fo
r lif
e.q
Wag
e Lo
ss b
enef
its m
ay con
tinue
for lif
e, h
owev
er.
rABP
bene
fits a
re add
ition
al b
enef
its p
ayab
le. A
BP
are pa
yabl
e fo
r th
e leng
th o
f the
disa
bilit
y or
unt
il de
ath.
Ben
efit
is ba
sed
on th
e du
ratio
n of
disa
bilit
y pr
ior to
retir
emen
t.
Source:I
AIA
BC
-WC
RI (2
012)
.
Dea
th B
enefits, Jan
12
Perm
anen
t Partial
Disab
ility, J
an 12
Perm
anen
t Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Tempo
rary Total D
isab
ility, J
an 12
Waiting
Period, Jan
12
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 71
Table C continued
Worke
rs' C
ompe
nsation State La
ws as of J
anua
ry 201
2
Waitin
gPe
riod
Before
Max
imum
Max
imum
PPD
a Worke
rM
inim
umLe
ngth
Limit to
Max
imum
Ben
efits
for
Max
imum
Statutor
yCan
Receive
Retro-
Weekly
Max
imum
of TTD
Basis of
Max
imum
Max
imum
Mon
etary
Weekly PPD
"Uns
ched
uled
Weekly
Limit for
Inde
mnity
activ
eTTD
Weekly TTD
Ben
efits
PTD
Weekly PTD
Leng
th of
PTD
Disab
ility
Injuries"
Dep
ende
ncy
Dep
ende
ncy
State
Ben
efits
period
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(in weeks
)Calcu
latio
nBen
efits
PTD B
enefits
Ben
efits
Ben
efits
(weeks
)Ben
efits
Ben
efits
Utah
3 days
14 calendar
$45.00
$747.00
312
66 2/3% PIW
W$635.00
PTD benefits are
No$498.00
312
$635.00
312 we
eks
days
awarded for life,
of com
bined
but P
TD status
benefits ex-
may be reexam
ined
clucin
g PT
Dby submitting em
- ployee to re
ason-
able medica
levaluations;
rehabilita
tion
and retra
ining
efforts; disc
losure
of Federal Income
Tax returns
Verm
ont
3 days
10 days
$374.00
$1,122.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$1,122.00
For d
uration of
No$1,122.00
405 we
eks for
$1,122.00
Varies with
disability
; insurer
total disa
bility
-non-spinal;
dependent
must review
can be for life
550 we
eks
after 2
years
spinal
Virginia
7 days
3 we
eks
$226.25
$905.00
500
66 2/3% PIW
W$905.00
Can be lifetime
Applica
ble
$905.00
None
$905.00
500 we
eks
comp. ra
te
Washington
3 days
14 calendar
15% of the
$1,100.26 for
Duration of TTD
De
pends on the
$1,100.26 for
For length of
There is a
$1100.26 for
$183,900.42
$1,123.78
18th birthday or
days
statewide
DOI prior to
disability
option chosen
DOI prior to
disability
and
maximum
DO
I prior to
23rd birthday
AMW; 100%
7/1/11;
by employee
7/1/11;
can be for life
paym
ent for
7/1/11;
when enrolled
of the wo
rkers'
$1,123.78 for
$1,123.78 for
lump sums
$1123.78 for
in school, or
gross m
onthly
DOI 7/1/11 -
DOI 7/1/11 -
only, up to
DOI 7/1/11 -
disabled
wage; m
ini-
6/30/12
6/30/12
$8,500
6/30/12
mum
time los
srate effective
prior to
July 2, 2008
West
3 days
7 con-
Federal
For F
Y 2012,
104
66 2/3% PIW
W
$676.61
Payable until
NoAs
of F
Y No
neAs
of F
Y De
ath or
Virginia
secutive
minimum
it is $711.38
not to
age 70
2012, it is
2012, the
remarriage
days
wage
on a weekly
exceed 100%
$497.97 on a
maximum
of widow
, basis
of the AW
W in
weekly basis
weekly benefit
majority of
West V
irginia
is $711.38
children
Wisc
onsin
3 days
7 non-
TTD rate
$854.00
Duration of TTD
66 2/3% PIW
W$854.00
For length of
No$302.00
$1,000
$854.00
$256,200
consecutive
maybe se
t as
disability
disability
and can
days
restricted
be for life
part-tim
e at
100%
of actu
alearning
s.
Wyoming
3 days
8 days
none
$815.00
24 months
66 2/3% actual
$543.33
NoNo
None
None
Benefits paid
None
monthly wa
ge
monthly
unless they earn
less than 73%
of
the SW
AMW
and then it is 92%
of their a
ctual
monthly wa
ges
a T
here
are
som
e lim
ited
exce
ptio
ns w
here
ben
efits
can
be pa
id fo
r 24
0 w
eeks
. b
Disa
bilit
y un
der PA
law
s mea
ns lo
ss o
f ear
ning
pow
er. P
A la
w allo
ws e
mpl
oyer
/ins
urer
to re
ques
t "Im
pairm
ent R
atin
g Exa
min
atio
n" after
em
ploy
ee h
as re
ceiv
ed 1
04 w
eeks
of f
ull b
enef
it pa
ymen
ts.
If IRE sh
ows l
ess t
han
50%
impa
irm
ent b
ased
on
AM
A G
uide
s the
n be
nefit
s are
reclas
sified
as p
artia
l disa
bilit
y co
mpe
nsat
ion
and
are su
bjec
t to
a 50
0-w
eek
cap.
c An
exce
ptio
n to
this
amou
nt cou
ld b
e m
ade w
hen
an ext
ensio
n of
MM
I ba
sed
on sp
inal su
rger
y is
appr
oved
by
the D
ivisi
on.
dFo
r pu
rpos
es o
f thi
s tab
le, "
cata
stro
phic in
jury
" m
eans
any
inju
ry w
hich
is o
ne o
f the
follo
win
g: (1
) Spi
nal c
ord
inju
ry in
volv
ing
seve
re p
aralys
is of
an
arm
, a le
g, o
r th
e trun
k; (2
) Am
puta
tion
of an
arm
, aha
nd, a
foot
, or a leg
invo
lvin
g th
e ef
fect
ive lo
ss o
f use
of t
hat a
ppen
dage
; (3)
Sev
ere br
ain
or clo
sed
head
inju
ry as e
vide
nced
by:
(A) S
ever
e se
nsor
y or
mot
or d
istur
banc
e; (B
) Sev
ere co
mm
unicat
ion
distur
-ba
nce; (C
) Sev
ere co
mpl
ex in
tegr
ated
dist
urba
nces
of c
ereb
ral f
unct
ion;
(D) S
ever
e di
stur
banc
es o
f con
scio
usne
ss; (
E) S
ever
e ep
isodi
c ne
urol
ogical d
isord
ers;
or (F
) Oth
er con
ditio
ns at l
east as s
ever
e in
na-
ture
as a
ny con
ditio
n pr
ovid
ed in
subp
arag
raph
s (A) t
hrou
gh (E
) of t
his p
arag
raph
; (4)
Sec
ond
or th
ird d
egre
e bu
rns o
ver 25
per
cent
of t
he b
ody
as a w
hole o
r th
ird d
egre
e bu
rns t
o 5
perc
ent o
r m
ore of
the
face
and
han
ds; (
5) T
otal o
r in
dustrial b
lindn
ess;
(6) A
ny o
ther
inju
ry o
f a n
atur
e an
d se
verity
that
pre
vent
s an
empl
oyee
from
being
abl
e to
per
form
his
or h
er p
rior
wor
k an
d an
y w
ork
avai
labl
e in
subs
tan-
tial n
umbe
rs w
ithin
the na
tiona
l eco
nom
y fo
r w
hich
such
em
ploy
ee is
oth
erw
ise q
ualif
ied,
pro
vide
d, h
owev
er, t
hat t
he in
jury
has
not
alre
ady
been
acc
epte
d as
a cat
astrop
hic in
jury
by
the em
ploy
er and
the
auth
orized
trea
ting
phys
icia
n ha
s relea
sed
the em
ploy
ee to
retu
rn.
e 72
% o
f the
wor
kers' p
re-in
jury
wee
kly
wag
e fo
r th
e fir
st 1
2 w
eeks
and
then
66.
67%
ther
eafter
. f
If th
e w
eekl
y w
age is
belo
w 5
0% o
f the
SAW
W th
e ca
lcul
atio
n is
wag
es, l
ess i
ncom
e ta
x an
d so
cial se
curity
.g
TT
D cea
ses d
urin
g th
e tim
e pe
riod
an
empl
oyee
refu
ses a
suita
ble jo
b of
fer.
hAll
earn
ed in
com
e of
the in
jure
d w
orke
r an
d all e
mpl
oym
ent b
ased
retir
emen
t inc
ome is
cons
ider
ed in
the ca
lcul
atio
n of
ext
ende
d be
nefit
s.i
KS
has a
cap
of $
125,
000
for Pe
rman
ent T
otal and
that
cap
includ
es any
TT
D p
aid.
j To
tal T
TD
and
PPD
for sc
hedu
led
and
unsc
hedu
led
cann
ot b
e gr
eate
r th
an $
75,0
00 if
the im
pairm
ent r
atin
g is
less th
an 2
5% and
$15
0,00
0 if
mor
e th
an 2
5%.
kW
orke
rs' C
ompe
nsat
ion
bene
fit p
rovi
sions
app
ly to
inju
ry d
ates
on
and
afte
r Jul
y 1,
200
8 to
dist
ingu
ish th
em fr
om th
e be
nefit
leve
ls ap
plicab
le to
mos
t of t
he calen
dar y
ear p
aym
ents sh
own
thro
ugh
the re
port.
lIf to
tal a
mou
nt o
f wee
kly
com
pens
atio
n is
less th
an $
7.00
per
wee
k.m
Dep
ende
ncy
bene
fits e
nd at v
ario
us ti
mes
dep
endi
ng o
n leve
l of d
epen
denc
y. S
pous
e-lif
etim
e or
unt
il re
mar
riag
e. C
hild
ren-
until
they
mee
t the
age
thre
shol
d. F
or cas
es th
at fa
ll in
the Sc
hoem
ehl w
indo
w(J
an 9
, 200
7- Ju
n 26
, 200
8), s
urvi
ving
dep
ende
nts c
an claim
ben
efits
from
SIF
instea
d of
dec
ease
d em
ploy
ee.
nBen
efits
end
for sp
ouse
on
rem
arriag
e or
upo
n de
ath
and
end
for ch
ildre
n up
on tu
rnin
g 18
, or if
still
in sc
hool
, 23,
if n
ot b
lind
or p
hysic
ally
disa
bled
. If b
lind
or p
hysic
ally
disa
bled
then
the be
nefit
s end
whe
n th
e bl
indn
ess o
r ph
ysical d
isabi
lity
ends
, after
age
18
or 2
3 as
app
ropr
iate
. If b
enef
its p
aid
to d
epen
dent
par
ents o
r gr
andp
aren
ts, t
hey
end
upon
dea
th. F
or b
roth
ers,
siste
rs o
r gr
andc
hild
ren
at age
18,
or, i
f in
scho
ol, 2
3.o
Wid
ow/W
idow
er m
ay re
ceiv
e lif
etim
e pa
ymen
ts if
he or
she is
tota
lly d
isabl
ed at t
he d
ate of
dec
eden
ts's
deat
h an
d ch
ild w
ill re
ceiv
e w
eekl
y pa
ymen
ts fo
r 40
0 w
eeks
or un
til age
18,
whi
chev
er is
long
er.
pExc
ept f
or P
TD
whi
ch is
pay
able fo
r lif
e.q
Wag
e Lo
ss b
enef
its m
ay con
tinue
for lif
e, h
owev
er.
rABP
bene
fits a
re add
ition
al b
enef
its p
ayab
le. A
BP
are pa
yabl
e fo
r th
e leng
th o
f the
disa
bilit
y or
unt
il de
ath.
Ben
efit
is ba
sed
on th
e du
ratio
n of
disa
bilit
y pr
ior to
retir
emen
t.
Source:I
AIA
BC
-WC
RI (2
012)
.
AM
WAve
rage
mon
thly
wag
e
ASW
WAve
rage
stat
e w
eekl
y w
age
AWW
Ave
rage
wee
kly
wag
e
DO
ID
ate of
inju
ry
NW
WN
et w
eekl
y w
age
PIW
WPr
e-in
jury
wee
kly
wag
e
SAW
WSt
ate-
wid
e av
erag
e w
eekl
y w
age
SWAM
WSt
ate-
wid
e av
erag
e m
onth
ly w
age
72 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
A.M. Best. 2013. Private Data Request. Oldwick, NJ:A.M. Best.
Azaroff, Lenore S., Charles Levenstein, and DavidWegman. 2002. “Occupational Injury and IllnessSurveillance: Conceptual Filters ExplainUnderreporting.” American Journal of Public Health92 (9): 1421–1429.
Barth, Peter, and Michael Niss. 1999. PermanentPartial Disability Benefits: Interstate Differences.Cambridge, MA: Workers Compensation ResearchInstitute.
Biddle, Jeff, Karen Roberts, Kenneth D. Rosenman,and Edward M. Welch. 1998. “What Percentage ofWorkers with Work-Related Illness Receive Workers’Compensation Benefits?” Journal of Occupationaland Environmental Medicine 40 (4): 325– 331.
Boden, Leslie I., Robert T. Reville and Jeff Biddle.2005. “The Adequacy of Workers’ CompensationCash Benefits”, Karen Roberts, John F. Burton, Jr.and Matthew M. Bodah, (Eds), Workplace Injuriesand Diseases: Prevention and Compensation: Essays inHonor of Terry Thomason, Kalamazoo, MI: W.E.Upjohn Institute for Employment Research: 37-68
Burton, John F., Jr. 2008. “Workers’ CompensationCash Benefits: Part Two: Cash Benefit Systems andCriteria for Evaluation.” Workers’ CompensationPolicy Review 8 (6): 1331.
Burton, John F., Jr. 2013. “Workers’ CompensationCosts for Employers, National and State data.”Workers’ Compensation Resources Research Report 6:3-26.
Burton, John F., Jr. and Daniel J.B. Mitchell. 2003.“Employee Benefits and Social Insurance: TheWelfare Side of Employee Relations.” IndustrialRelations to Human Resources and Beyond, edited byBruce E. Kaufman, Richard A. Beaumont, and RoyB. Helfgot. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Calderone, Peter. 2011. “Workers’ Compensation:Woodrow Wilson’s Important Legacy for NewJersey,” Reflections on the History and Development ofWorkers’ Compensation in the United States, edited by
Gregory C. Krohm, 165-71. Madison, WI:International Association of Industrial AccidentBoards and Commissions.
Clayton, Ann. 2004. “Workers’ Compensation: ABackground for Social Security Professionals.” SocialSecurity Bulletin 65 (4): 715.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS).2013. Private data request.
Fishback, Price V. and Shawn Everett Kantor. 1996.“The Adoption of Workers’ Compensation in theUnited States, 1900-1930,” NBER Working PaperSeries 5840.
Fricker, Mary. 1997. “California Workers Try toSecure Benefits: Debilitating Delay, Insult to Injury.”Workers’ Comp series. http://pressdemocrat.com.
Galizzi, Monica, Petra Miesmaa, Laura Punnett,Craig Slatin and PHASE. 2010. “Injured Workers’Underreporting in the Health Care Industry,”Industrial Relations, 49: 22–42.
Hunt, H. Allan. 2004. Adequacy of EarningsReplacement in Workers’ Compensation Programs.Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute forEmployment Research and NASI.
IAIABC–WCRI. 2012. Workers’ Compensation Laws,January 2012, WC-12-18. (Joint Publication ofIAIABC and Workers Compensation ResearchInstitute). Boston, MA
Krohm, Gregory C. 2011. “Wisconsin’s Role inPioneering Workers’ Compensation.” In Reflectionson the History and Development of Workers’Compensation in the United States, edited by GregoryC. Krohm, 185-93. Madison, WI: InternationalAssociation of Industrial Accident Boards andCommissions.
Leigh, J. Paul, Steven Markowitz, Marianne Fahs,and Philip Landrigan. 2000. Costs of OccupationalInjuries and Illnesses. Ann Arbor, MI: The Universityof Michigan Press.
References
Manley, Mike. 2013. “Comments on Workers’Compensation Costs for Employers: National andState Data.” Workers’ Compensation Resources ResearchReport, Supplement. 6: 3-5.
Milton, Donald K., Gina M. Solomon, Richard A.Rosiello, and Robert F. Herrick. 1998. “Risk andIncidence of Asthma Attributable to OccupationalExposure among HMO Members.” AmericanJournal of Industrial Medicine 33: 110.
Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.2005. Comparing Workers’ Compensation Claims andOSHA Data Initiative Case, research report preparedby E. Messiou, and B. Zaidman. St. Paul, MN:Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry.
Morse, Timothy F., Charles Dillon, NicholasWarren, Charles Levenstein and Andrew Warren.1998. “The Economic and Social Consequences ofWork-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders: TheConnecticut Upper Extremity Surveillance Project(CUSP).” International Journal of Occupational &Environmental Health 4: 209-216.
National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI).2002. “Workers’ Compensation Coverage: TechnicalNote on Estimates.” Workers’ Compensation DataFact Sheet 2. Washington, DC: National Academy ofSocial Insurance.
National Association of Insurance Commissioners(NAIC). 2012. Statistical Compilation of AnnualStatement Information for Property/Casualty InsuranceCompanies in 2012. Kansas City, MO: NAIC.Similar publication for the years 1998-2011.
National Council on Compensation Insurance, Inc.(NCCI). 2013a. Private Data Request. Boca Raton,FL: NCCI.———. 2013b. Annual Statistical Bulletin, ed.1996. Boca Raton, FL: NCCI. Similar publicationfor the years 1997-2012.
Oregon Department of Consumer and BusinessServices. 2013. Oregon Workers’ CompensationPremium Rate Ranking: Calendar Year 2012, CentralServices Division, Information and Research Section.
Postal, Arthur D. 2013. “Oklahoma Passes BillAllowing Employers to Opt Out of Workers’ CompSystem,” PropertyCasualty360.com (May 1).
Pransky, Glenn, Terry Snyder, Allard Dembe, andJay Himmelstein. 1999. “Under Reporting of WorkRelated Disorders in the Workplace: A Case Studyand Review of the Literature.” Ergonomics 42: 171-182.
Social Security Administration. 2012. Office ofResearch, Evaluation, and Statistics. AnnualStatistical Supplement, 2012. Washington, DC: SSA.———.2013a. Unpublished Data from the Office ofDisability. Baltimore, MD: SSA.———. 2013b. The 2012 Annual Report of theBoard of Trustees of the Federal Old Age and SurvivorsInsurance and Disability Insurance Trust Funds.Washington, DC: SSA.
Spieler, Emily A. and John F. Burton, Jr. 2012. “TheLack of Correspondence Between Work RelatedDisability and Receipt of Workers’ CompensationBenefits.” American Journal of Industrial Medicine 55:487-505.
Stanbury, Martha, Patrick Joyce, and Howard Kipen.1995. “Silicosis and Workers’ Compensation in NewJersey.” Journal of Occupational EnvironmentalMedicine 37: 1342-1347.
Strunin, Lee, and Leslie I. Boden. 2004. “TheWorkers’ Compensation System: Worker Friend orFoe?” American Journal of Industrial Medicine45(4):338-345.
TDI (Texas Department of Insurance). 2013. TexasDepartment of Insurance Workers’ CompensationResearch and Evaluation Group, EmployerParticipation in the Texas Workers’ CompensationSystem: 2012 Estimates.
Thomason, Terry, Timothy P. Schmidle, and John F.Burton, Jr. 2001. Workers’ Compensation: Benefits,Costs, and Safety under Alternative InsuranceArrangements. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. UpjohnInstitute for Employment Research.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2005. The Number of Firmsand Establishments, Employment, Annual Payroll, andReceipts in 1997 by Industry and Employment Size ofEnterprise. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). 2012.Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Washington,DC: U.S. DOJ.
Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Coverage, and Costs, 2012 • 73
U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. DOL). 2008. AnInterim Report to Congress on Occupational Diseases.Assistant Secretary for Policy Evaluation andResearch. Washington, D.C. ———. 2013a. Bureau of Labor Statistics. EmployerCosts for Employee Compensation – December 2012.USDL-13-0421. Washington, DC: U.S. DOL ———. 2013b. Bureau of Labor Statistics. EmployeeBenefits Survey, March 2011. Washington, DC: U.S.DOL. ———. 2013c. Bureau of Labor Statistics. NationalCensus of Fatal Occupational Injuries in 2012. USDL-13-1699 (August). Washington, DC: U.S. DOL. ———. 2013d. Bureau of Labor Statistics. EmployerReported Workplace Injuries and Illnesses in 2012.USDL-13-2119 (October). Washington, DC: U.S.DOL.———. 2013e. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Nonfataloccupational injuries and illnesses requiring days awayfrom work, 2012. News. USDL-13-2257(November). Washington, DC: U.S. DOL.———. 2013f. ES 202 Report. Washington, DC:U.S. DOL. ———. 2014. Private Data request from the Officeof Workers’ Compensation Program, U.S. DOL.
U.S. Small Business Administration (U.S. SBA).Office of Advocacy. 2013. Employer Firms,Establishments, Employment, and Annual Payroll byFirm Size and State, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S.SBA.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. VeteransBenefit Administration. 2013. Annual BenefitsReport, Fiscal year 2011. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Veterans Affairs.
Williams, C. Arthur and Peter S. Barth. 1973.Compendium on Workmen’s Compensation.Washington, DC: National Commission on StateWorkmen’s Compensation Laws.
Willborn, Steven L., Stewart J. Schwab, John F.Burton, Jr., and Gillian L.L. Lester. 2012.Employment Law: Cases and Materials (Fifth Edition)Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.
74 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SOCIAL INSURANCE
www.nasi.orgPrice $75.00ISBN: 1-884902-61-3