Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Because… Madigan!
Next Post: Unclear on the concepts
Posted in:
* NPR…
A “race to the bottom” in state workers’ compensation laws has the Labor Department calling for “exploration” of federal oversight and federal minimum benefits.
“Working people are at great risk of falling into poverty,” the agency says in a new report on changes in state workers’ comp laws. Those changes have resulted in “the failure of state workers’ compensation systems to provide [injured workers] with adequate benefits.”
In the last decade, the report notes, states across the country have enacted new laws, policies and procedures “which have limited benefits, reduced the likelihood of successful application for workers’ compensation benefits, and/or discouraged injured workers from applying for benefits.”
The report was prompted by a letter last fall from 10 prominent Democratic lawmakers, who urged Labor Department action to protect injured workers in the wake of a ProPublica/NPR series on changes in workers’ comp laws in 33 states.
The ProPublica/NPR stories featured injured workers who lost their homes, were denied surgeries or were even denied prosthetic devices recommended by their doctors.
That’s not a bad idea. Some states (like Indiana) have gone overboard with their lousy treatment of injured workers in an attempt to attract employers. Even Greg Baise at the IMA admits this.
The federal report is here.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:24 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Because… Madigan!
Next Post: Unclear on the concepts
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Having a national standard would add some predictability for companies that are in business in more than one state.
Comment by The Captain Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:28 am
There right there! This all day! Please Loving God let’s bias towards workers instead of the owner/investor class.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:34 am
I believe this would require Congressional action.
Congress-critters are much too busy renaming post offices, yammering on the TV box and begging for campaign contributions. That’s about all they do.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:36 am
–Having a national standard would add some predictability for companies that are in business in more than one state.–
And take the wind out of the sails of those companies WC shopping the states, destroying lives and families when they move a company or plant just to gain more profit for the owner/investor class.
It’s destroying lives when they do this!
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:36 am
Imagine that Indiana the worst for workers?? Mike Pence now wants to be the Donald’s VP…What a pair!!
We need a national standard, to protect workers.
Comment by Grandpa Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:36 am
States rights, you know. Never have understood why we think it’s ok for one state to be able to treat their citizens differently than other states in terms of stuff like this, and in terms of marriage.
Comment by Thoughts Matter Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:42 am
“Having a national standard would add some predictability for companies that are in business in more than one state.”
———–
Oh, great - another federally imposed ‘national standard’ that will probably work every bit as well as the so-called Affordable Care Act.
“Federal Oversight”… No doubt, by the US Department of Labor. What a nightmare that will be.
You think we have business ‘off shoring’ production currently. Just wait…..
Comment by Anon Downstate Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:53 am
There was a piece I saw recently where employers were using ERISA to opt out of worker’s comp all together via federal preemption. You might guess that the new ERISA plans were not all that great for the injured workers. Unsurprisingly, companies in Texas and Oklahoma are leading the charge on this.
You may want to be careful what you wish for if congressional Republicans get a hold of the workers comp system.
Comment by The Way I See It Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:56 am
I am not a workers comp wonk, but this sounds like issue long overdue to be addressed nationally. Enough with the races to the bottom.
Comment by James Knell Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:56 am
If the IMA president thinks Indiana has gone overboard with their bad treatment of injured workers it must be really bad.
Comment by Enviro Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:03 am
We could do away with work comp. Just let injured employees sue employers directly. help those poor employers from being abused with work comp costs and the benefit of extremly limited liability.
Lots of employers talking about the costs but skipping the huge savings the protection from lawsuits affords and the extremly small caps on damages. Where else can you casue somome death but be limited to a lax of 500 weeks of salary
Comment by Ghost Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:12 am
….Oh, great - another federally imposed ‘national standard’ that will probably work every bit as well as the so-called Affordable Care Act.
“Federal Oversight”… No doubt, by the US Department of Labor. What a nightmare that will be.
You think we have business ‘off shoring’ production currently. Just wait……..
If you have ever dealth with the DOL you know how big of an abortion that agency is. I agree with the stateme
nt above.
Comment by JDuc Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:12 am
–‘national standard’ that will probably work every bit as well as the so-called Affordable Care Act.–
Umm, ACA does work. It works wonders for the people that I help every day. It works for thousands and thousands of our fellow Illinois citizens who did not have any health insurance before. You just don’t see it because most are blind to the needs of the poor, disabled and elderly.
ACA is one of the best things that has ever happened for these folks.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:14 am
I know this is pollyannish thinking but it would be nice if a ‘national standard’ included a maximum premium that could be charged by the WC carriers to lessen the financial burden on businesses.
Comment by Cubs in '16 Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:18 am
–national standard’ included a maximum premium that could be charged by the WC carriers to lessen the financial burden on businesses.–
EXACTLY!!!! It’s the insurance companies insatiable need for profit that needs to be stopped as well.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:36 am
“You just don’t see it because most are blind to the needs of the poor, disabled and elderly.”
————-
ACA works for a limited subset of people, but that’s not what was originally promised. Remember? Families were ’supposed’ to save money, right? If you already had insurance, ACA was supposed to be an improvement, right? And there were all sorts of other promises made, right? None of which happened.
Why should we believe the same set of carnival barkers pitching us the same story all over again?
Only this time the pitch would be on worker’s comp?
Methinks you have a really big time ’sell’ job to do.
Comment by Anon Downstate Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:36 am
Wow injured workers forced into poverty…hmmm that sounds like what Madigan has been tellin’ BigBrain for 2 years.
BTW there is a national system…it is called the courts. Bosses S* themselves when it is suggested WC return to that venue
BTW-2how does a national system address median salary? IN is about $50Km West IN (aka IL) is $59K. How is that goin’ to be addressed?
Comment by Annonin' Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 11:51 am
I’m loving the thought of a national standard. Is there a way, using agency law, to craft regulation making it illegal for large employers to extort tax money or tax breaks by threatening to move if their demands aren’t met? Personally, I think one could make the case against the employers under the RICO Act.
Comment by Triple fat Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:00 pm
@Honeybear- I agree completely with your statement on workers comp, particularly this-
And take the wind out of the sails of those companies WC shopping the states, destroying lives and families when they move a company or plant just to gain more profit for the owner/investor class.
I believe that is spot on.
On the other hand- I know this is off the topic of the post but-
=ACA is one of the best things that has ever happened for these folks.=
This may be true for some, but it isn’t true for everyone. For some of us it has been a bit of a disaster. The rules are very convoluted and hard to follow for those of us who are not expert in the field. It has forced us to reduce hours and staffing because of the cost associated with health insurance.
I feel for those that struggled to get health care because they did not have insurance. It is hard to understand why we cannot do better as the wealthiest nation in the world.
Comment by JS Mill Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:06 pm
=== Where else can you casue somome death but be limited to a lax of 500 weeks of salary ===
That is not exactly correct — in Illinois there is ZERO ($0) death benefits for workers killed by their job unless there is a surviving spouse, minor child (up to age 25 if a student) or dependent heir.
Otherwise the only liability for a dead worker is an $8,000 burial reimbursement.
Comment by Matt Belcher Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:38 pm
Another solution in search of a problem.
Comment by Chicagonk Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:40 pm
–I feel for those that struggled to get health care because they did not have insurance. It is hard to understand why we cannot do better as the wealthiest nation in the world.–
I truly get that there are a lot of bugs to work out. I also get that a “market based” solution like Mitt Romneys was bound to have problems because you’re trying to obtain a public good through private profit driven means. Honestly, I wish we had just moved to single payer/universal health care like the rest of the First world countries. But you know, let a socialist dream right? But anyway. What I was trying to point out in my post was the thousands of people I have personally seen in my job as a DHS caseworker that have benefited by having insurance.
Over a decade ago my family had to go on CHIP because the insurance companies denied my spouse insurance (unattributable neuropathy which was actually cured 3 years later by a chiropractor) Our insurance cost us nine grand a year and we had to get financial help from the parents.
Whatever solution we come up with we’ve just got to work hard at it instead of the steady chant for repeal when so many lives are literally on the line. We’ve lost our sense of the common good. We’ve got to care for and cover ALL the poor, disabled and elderly. You know my preferred solution but I just wanted to highlight that a majority of the 52,000 people in St. Clair county alone who use my office utilize ACA. That’s a lot of folks to cut off.
Back to the post. I strongly feel that we must bias towards the worker from here on out. What has arisen with Trump and Bernie will not go away. We need to care for people at the lower end of our societal ladder. We must….or else.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:41 pm
Anon Downstater. I would say the fault of the ACA not working as planned does not lie so much with the ACA itself as it does the insurance companies sabotaging it and Congress attacking it and not tweeking it from the very beginning.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:44 pm
Now an interesting question would be, with this in mind, what could be done to workers comp that might facilitate The Grand Bargain?
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:45 pm
If memory serves, and I go back a pretty long way on this subject, in 1975 Illinois extensively rewrote the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act and Illinois Occupational Diseases Act in an attempt to meet some federal guidelines that were in existence back then.
Indiana did not. Many of our neighboring states did not.
We may need to be careful here. Somewhere in my ancient archives I may have the report used to amend the Acts back in 1975, or I may have a few articles describing how the then Feds report prompted those changes.
When I began practicing in this field there were a few pre-amendment cases I handled and the differences in compensation were pretty stunning back then.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:50 pm
Louis- You just gave me a flashback to the “Name of the Rose” movie. I just imagined you as one of the monk going into the ancient library to retrieve the forbidden tome!
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 12:52 pm
A lack of compassion for injured workers is just one of many problems associated with how workers compensation is handled by different states. If you look beyond the impact on injured workers in states with poor workers compensation systems, you come to the realization that it distorts the free market by providing a competitive advantage to employers in states that do not provide a reasonable level of workers compensation coverage. Beyond that, you’re still left with unfair costs paid by all of us collectively in the form of Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income along with Medicare and Medicaid because those systems end up being the only real options available to injured workers in some places. Externalizing costs in that way provides little financial incentive for manufacturers to improve overall safety and reduce rates of injuries. I often read about concerns over the “taxpayer” when it comes to public employee benefits, but seldom do I hear those concerns directed toward issues such as this. This is yet another case where the states that claim to have a smaller role for government end up being heavily subsidized by the federal government.
Comment by AC Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 1:08 pm
I read something like this a while back. This is why I’m very much against certain very-rich interests gaining too much political power, such as Rauner, the Koch brothers and other CEO/hedge fund types. When they take over, large groups of workers lose or stand to lose.
We’ve had years to look at the impact of such policies. It’s no accident that RTW states are overwhelmingly lower-income with fewer economic safeguards for workers.
The race to the bottom could slow or stop only if voters reject politicians like Rauner, Pence, Snyder, Walker, Brownback and so many others. I think it’s a major problem, and to be fair, that may extend to Democrats who support harmful trade deals.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 1:58 pm
Because democracy doesn’t work? Let the states make their own rules. People vote in those states. And if they don’t like the results they can vote with their feet.
Comment by Robert the 1st Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:01 pm
==People vote in those states. And if they don’t like the results they can vote with their feet.==
When the company is at fault, why should an Illinois resident pay for a workers disability coverage through federal programs, rather than a company at fault for a workers injury? Why should an Illinois company be at a competitive disadvantage, just because companies here bear the costs of their injured workers? Is ignoring your responsibilities and shifting costs to the federal government and the injured worker (because they are not made whole in that situation) ethical?
Comment by AC Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:28 pm
This is the time for the IMA to say exactly what they want the WC program to look like.
Just answer a simple question : How much is an amputated leg worth? Tell us.
Comment by Dr X Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:33 pm
==Let the states make their own rules.==
I’m sure there were people who felt the same before a Federal Minimum Wage. And there are 20 states who do not pay one cent more than that minimum wage. How much do you think people would get paid without that minimum limit in some of those states? And how can they leave when they don’t have the money because they don’t get paid enough?
Comment by HangingOn Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:39 pm
“Anon Downstater. I would say the fault of the ACA not working as planned does not lie so much with the ACA itself as it does the insurance companies sabotaging it and Congress attacking it and not tweeking it from the very beginning.”
———–
First off (forgetting the ideological issues), when you are putting any major (seriously large) program in place and you don’t have ‘buy in’ from the major players, you’re going to have issues.
That’s not politics, that’s just common sense. That goes for any big time project. And ACA didn’t have it.
Secondly, everything went into a “design-build-design-build” mode from the very start. ANYBODY who has been seriously involved in any major system development effort knows that schedules are going to have to have built-in flexibility, and ACA had NONE. The folks doing this had no clue as to what they were waltzing into.
IMO, trying to ‘tweak’ something that’s already operating in a “Design-Build-Design-Build” model is like trying to guarantee failure. Which, no surprise, is pretty much what happened. And, not surprisingly, what lots & lots of techies were screaming about at the very front end of this (ACA) rolling train wreck. But hey, don’t listen to all those little folks who have to find a way to make it all happen……
There’s some serious lessons from our ACA experience here for trying to set up a comprehensive workman’s compensation system under federal auspices. The question really is will we be smart enough to recognize them?
IMO, you better plan on a 5-6-7 year rollout for something involving federal workman’s comp like you are talking about. Easy to talk about, hard to do.
Comment by Anon Downstate Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 2:42 pm
Anon Downstate, I’ll give you that. It’s complex stuff but on behalf of all those I serve every single day, on behalf of those who can get healthcare now, go to a doctor, treat an illness, I am very thankful that they did what they did as flawed as it might be. When you have someone cry sitting across from you because they for the first time have “coverage”, I think you can understand where I am coming from.
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:39 pm
I would also add that no private insurance company is going to “buy in” on a proposition that limits their profits.
Again for whom do we give the benefit?
Corporate profits?
or
Citizens in need?
Comment by Honeybear Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:42 pm
At the rate technology is going, especially robotics, WC will continue to become a smaller and smaller issue. And as some sectors continue to press for better benefits, including higher overhead costs, the employers will adopt more tech as it becomes available. Or move production when feasible.
Comment by Cook County Commoner Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:43 pm
The IMA has been on the record for a long time.
Causation standard so employers only pay their proportionate share of an injury
Reduced indemnity benefits. Blago and the Dems hiked it 7.5 percent in 2005 vaulting our cost to 3rd highest.
Reduce medical costs. Why should a surgeon get paid 300 percent more for operating on a WC patient than if covered by private insurance or government health care.
I don’t believe that the IMA has ever said that Indiana harms workers. If I’m correct, they have indicated Illinois does not have to be Indiana (ranked 48 or 49) but needs to be competitive and in the middle of the pack.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 3:45 pm
==Again for whom do we give the benefit?
Corporate profits?
or
Citizens in need?==
Honeybear, I agree with your conclusion, but I strongly disagree that this is a zero sum game. Taking care of the people that are injured benefits businesses overall. When good workers compensation systems are in place, people are able to return to work and become productive more easily. This incentivizes entire industries to reduce workplace injuries, also benefiting business through reduced downtime and increased productivity. With a minimum workers compensation system in place, there would no longer be a financial incentive to move away from places where they are mandated to do the right thing and take care of injured workers. This type of movement, where companies end up relocating when they already have a perfectly good infrastructure in place, harms overall productivity and raises costs for taxpayers overall. I really do think that when we all do better, we all do better, even the people at the top.
Comment by AC Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 4:06 pm
@ Lou Astaves
You are sort of correct. In the early 70s the Nixon administration appointed a National Commission on State Workers’ Compensation Laws to make recommendations to the states on modernizing their WC laws. In the mid 70s Illinois adopted more of their recommendations than the other states. The genesis of Illinois’ current system came from a Republican.
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 4:19 pm
I agree with Bill Clinton. This WC thing is the craziest thing in the world…..or did i not hear him right?
Comment by Blue dog dem Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 9:15 pm
Causation is the antithesis of workers compensation. And it creates a pretty gaping loophole, doesn’t it? If Walgreen’s is purchased by a foreign company, it means the new corporation is no longer responsible for years of muscle or nerve damage that suddenly leave a cashier or warehouse worker unable to work.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Wednesday, Oct 5, 16 @ 10:44 pm