******************

Employees must know before they get hurt who they should talk to when they suffer an injury. Immediate injury reporting is a key to keeping injury costs as low as possible. Studies have shown that the costs of an injury go up when there is a delay in reporting. Make it your policy that any employee injury is reported before the end of the shift.

Once the injury is reported, getting the proper treatment is key.

Agents should help employers build a relationship with an occupational medical provider in your area. You can find board certified occupational doctors on the web at acoem.org. Even if there isn’t an occupational medicine specialist in your town, you can develop a relationship with a physician and send your injured employees to that doctor.

The goal of having a relationship with a doctor is to ensure that the doctor knows the business and the physical demands that employees are under. They should also have a good knowledge of the transitional work that the employer has available. When a doctor knows that you will accept an employee back to work on transitional duty, they are far more likely to send them back to work rather than send them home to sit on the couch and watch infomercials for attorneys at 1-800-SUE-THEM.

When an employee is at work, they are less likely to hire an attorney and more likely to work hard to get back to their full duty position. This process not only gets employees back to work more quickly, it also reduces the amount of money that the insurance company spends on employee injuries, reducing the clients experience mod and therefore their workers’ compensation insurance costs.

The workforce is getting older and we need to be mindful of accommodations that older workers may need today that they didn’t need before. However, this new research from NCCI should sharpen employers focus on what can drive down injury rates and costs, like hiring the right people, training them to do their jobs safely and when accidents do happen, have them reported immediately and treated by a skilled physician that will send them back to work, rather that send them home.

If agents help employers follow those steps, having older, experienced workers on the payroll can be a great asset rather than a potential liability. It can also create clients for life.

Kevin Ring is the Director of Community Growth for the Institute of WorkComp Professionals, which trains insurance agents to help employers reduce Workers’ Compensation expenses. A licensed property and casualty insurance agent, he is the co-developer of a new Workers’ Comp software suite that will help insurance professionals in working with employers. He can be contacted at 828-274-0959 or Kevin@workcompprofessionals.com.

***************

The workforce is getting older. People are retiring later in life than ever before. This trend has been a major concern for those in the health and safety field because the common knowledge has been that older workers are more prone to suffer very expensive injuries.

However, new research from the National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) has cast doubt on this conventional wisdom, or at the very least potentially changed the definition of “older workers”.

NCCI studied different age groups and the rate at which they get injured. They found younger workers (under 35) had substantially more cuts on their fingers and older workers (over 35) suffer more cases of carpal tunnel and more cervical injuries, although the numbers are startlingly similar.

So, that quiets the argument about the aging workforce causing more injuries, but what about cost? The research shows that there is a substantial cost difference between younger and older workers, but the split isn’t necessarily where you might expect it.

Workers between the ages of 20-24 create much lower costs (and fewer days out), but once workers reach 35, the costs of their injuries are very similar.

What does this all mean? To start with, it now largely redefines an “older worker” as someone who grew up listening to Pearl Jam instead of Elvis. This means that someone over 35, not just someone belonging to the traditional “over 65” group, is now being classified as an “older worker.” It should also prompt agents to help businesses strongly focus on the things that can reduce injury costs for everyone.

Injury prevention for employees should begin before they even become employees– during the hiring process. Help your clients develop written functional description for the position that is open. Once that is complete, it is critical that the candidate the employer selects be given a conditional offer of employment. This document is a bona fide job offer with the caveat that you can withdraw the offer if they are physically or mentally unable to do the job with reasonable accommodation. Once this is complete, have the candidate go to the doctor and complete a post-offer, pre-placement medical questionnaire. Having this completed allows a physician to ask questions relevant to the job and to let the employer know whether or not the candidate is fit for the job. If they are, it’s time to get started. If not, they will have to find another suitable candidate.

Once an employee is on the job, it is critical that they are always mindful of how they are doing their job. Far more injuries are caused by unsafe acts by employees than any unsafe conditions in their workplace. Employees that feel rushed are more likely to set safety aside in the name of meeting a deadline and those decisions result in accidents that could have been prevented.

When your client takes all these steps and has a workforce that is fit for work and doing their job safely, then the focus turns to what happens when an accident does happen and an employee is injured.

It’s only common sense that employers want injured employees back on the job as soon as possible.  Being away from the job not only chips away at a businesses’ productivity but also creates  a drop in morale and an increase in tension as workers now have to pick up the workload of a fallen comrade.  But rushing an employee back to work CAN be a mistake… as we point out here.

By lowering the length and duration of time away from work due to injuries and illnesses on or off the job, Return-to-Work (RTW) programs have reduced Workers’ Compensation, disability and medical insurance costs as well as strengthened morale and productivity. More recently RTW programs have helped protect employers from lawsuits regarding regulatory non-compliance, particularly related to the ADAAA.

Traditionally, employers focused on helping employees who were injured at work get back to work early with RTW. Recognizing the value of a healthy workforce, the commonalities of recovering from on and off the job injuries, the efficiencies of coordinating RTW efforts, and the greater risk exposure to discrimination claims when workers are treated differently depending on the reason for their absence, some employers are moving toward integrating occupational and non-occupational cases to reduce absences and lower claims costs.

Whether the program is an integrated occupational/non-occupation RTW or a traditional RTW, the economic and legislative landscape poses challenging issues for employers. Here are ten common mistakes:

1. Failure to effectively manage the increase in number of employees covered by the ADAA There is now little doubt that the expanded definition of disability under the ADAAA has significantly increased the number of employees who are entitled to accommodations. The definition of disability is so broad that some labor and employment attorneys advise not to fight whether the employee is disabled but to engage in a dialogue to find out the limitations and discuss accommodation possibilities.

The ADAAA requires covered employers  (those who have 15 or more employees) to assess accommodations for any worker who might need themregardless of whether the disability arose from a work or personal injury or illness.  The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has taken the position that employers with inflexible leave policies violate the ADA by failing to accommodate employees covered by the Act.

High profile cases include a $6.2 million settlement  involving  Sears Roebuck’s’ automatic termination of employees whose leave expired under the company’s policy on Workers’ Compensation absences, and the nationwide truckload carrier, Interstate Distributor Co., which was order to pay $4.85 million to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit. The EEOC found that the company’s maximum 12 weeks of leave, consistent with FMLA, and its “no restrictions” policy, requiring employees be 100% healed and able to perform 100% of their job duties before they could return to work, violated the ADA.

The linchpin of an employer’s obligation to a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA is the interactive process for reasonable accommodation. While the ADA doesn’t prohibit employers from having a maximum leave policy, exceptions to the policy must be made on a case-by-case basis to reasonably accommodate people with disabilities.

Also, a program that limits the availability of transitional jobs to a certain class of workers—those who are injured on the job—risks violating the ADA unless there is a legitimate business reason for doing so. The EEOC found Jewel-Osco violated the ADA by prohibiting disabled employees from participating in the company’s 90-day light duty program if they were not injured on the job.

As a federal law, the ADA supersedes state Workers’ Compensation laws, and therefore, its directives provide the floor level protection for disabled individuals. State Workers’ Compensation laws can provide more protection, but not less. Properly structured, RTW programs can decrease the ADA exposure.

2. Insist employees be released to “full duty” before returning to work Considerable evidence exists about the value of RTW programs that provide a means for employees to transition back into their full duty jobs with responsibilities and tasks modified for short periods of time. Insisting on a return to “full duty” increases Workers’ Comp costs and heightens the possibility that the injured employee will fall prey to a “disability syndrome” – the failure to return to work when it is medically possible. An individual’s sense of self-worth and motivation often comes from the ability to be productive. When that is taken away, depression can set in or an unfounded belief in the seriousness of the injury can extend the absence and drive up costs. The EEOC has also spoken on this issue. In 2011, Supervalu Inc., American Drug Stores and Jewel Food Stores Inc. were found to have violated the ADA with inflexible leave policies that prohibited employees on one-year paid disability leave from returning to work unless they could return without any accommodation to full service and had no physical or mental restrictions. If a worker still has medical restrictions at the point of maximum medical improvement, the employer needs to compare the worker’s abilities with the essential functions of the job, not with some arbitrary standard of 100 percent fitness for work.

3. Do not account for co-morbidities. Co-morbidities are health issues that can complicate or delay an employee’s recovery, such as diabetes, obesity, hypertension, depression, and so on. It is well documented that the presence of comorbidities significantly increases the cost of Workers’ Comp claims.

There are valuable disability guidelines that predict how long it “normally” takes for a worker to return to work. While it’s important to ensure that the duration of modified job assignments is not indefinite, inflexible adherence to the guidelines can lead to problems and potential discrimination suits, particularly when there are co-morbidities involved.

In order to get claimants back to functionality, Workers’ Comp has shouldered much of the cost for treating co-morbidities, particularly for claimants who do not have health insurance. Although the cost may shift under Obamacare, it will take time and it’s too early to determine the overall impact on the bottom line.

Since chronic conditions are major drivers of Workers’ Comp, health and disability costs, proactive employers are expanding preventive services and wellness initiatives to make the workforce healthier.

4. Fail to commit the budget or resources. While the RTW has not escaped the pressure to cut costs during the sputtering economic recovery, the direct and indirect costs of absences as well as the exposure of non compliance with federal and state regulatory and statutory requirements is likely to be far more costly than implementing a RTW process. And the longer an employee is out of work, the less likely they are to return.

Some employers bring workers back to work as early as possible to reduce claim costs but are not committed to a RTW program. Without a plannedtransition back to full productivity, employees will not build up the tolerance to resume full job duties. Also, the plan needs to deal with potential failures; not every injured worker will return to the pre-injury occupation.

The costs to implement a program will vary depending upon industry, company size and injury history. The good news is that there are ample resources from insurance carriers, insurance agents, and governmental agencies to guide the process.

5. Be deterred from setting up transitional assignments because the employee “may get hurt again.” Employer and employee fear of re-injury often hampers RTW efforts. This of course is a risk, but an even greater risk is having the employee stay at home and develop a “disability attitude” that extends the absence and drives up costs. The right timeline and transitional process for an employee to return to work is best done on a case-by-case basis. Guided by the goal of safely returning the employee to their pre-injury job, employers who work and stay in touch with the employee, the treating physician, and supervisor are most successful.

6. Don’t distinguish “light duty” from “transitional work” from “reasonable accommodation.” The definition of these terms is complicated and confusing. Occupational RTW assignments are best described as transitional tasks. Limited in duration such tasks help the injured worker return to full productivity by being progressively adjusted in line with medically documented changes in the employee’s ability. Under the ADAAA, it is permissible for an employer to reserve less physically demanding or  “light-duty” jobs for those with work-related disabilities and these jobs should be distinct from transitional tasks.

“Reasonable accommodations” involves changes to a job so that a person with a disability can perform the essential functions of the job. It can take many forms and the EEOC expects an individualized analysis and justification for every employee with a physical or mental impairment that qualifies for coverage under the ADAAA.  Failing to explore all options, including extended leaves or temporary positions, have landed a number of employers in trouble with the EEOC. Case law, consent decrees and EEOC guidance on best practices help to execute the interactive process appropriately.

7. Rely on the physician to guide the RTW process. While many employers have recognized that they need to take the lead role with both the treating physician and injured worker, others still rely on the physician.  While physicians are medical experts, they do not have essential information about workplace policies, job demands and the availability of transitional work. Moreover, if a physician’s training is not specifically in the treatment of occupational injuries, they may not adhere to evidence-based guidelines.

8. Don’t understand how laws overlap and conflict. The overlapping and often conflicting requirements of ADA, FMLA, Workers’ Comp and a plethora of state laws are an administrative nightmare. There are differences in eligibility, leave lengths, job reinstatement requirements, access to medical information, fit-for-duty certifications and so on. More than one law can affect the same situation and each must be considered. For this reason, a “silo” structure in which separate areas manage Workers’ Compensation, disability and health can be problematic, inefficient and duplicitous. Yet,at the same time, this quagmire adds to the challengeof integrating occupational and non-occupational RTW. Ultimately, the entire organization is responsible for the knowledge possessed by any part of the organization and an employer needs to determine the best process for its needs and circumstances.

9. Don’t stay focused on the goal and establish consequences The ultimate goal of RTW is to transition workers back to their pre-injury job. Whether it’s a result of a poorly managed program, lack of knowledge or fear of violating a law, some employees remain in a reduced-productivity position too long, or indefinitely. An Integrated Benefits Institute survey revealed a RTW focus on the employee’s own job, modified as necessary, ranked as the most important factor in successful RTW. Requiring mandatory participation was the second most important program feature affecting RTW success.

While employees cannot be required to accept transitional assignments when on FMLA leave, in most cases, the Workers’ Compensation indemnity payments may discontinue with the refusal to return to work. Even under the ADAAA, “indefinite” leave is not considered a reasonable accommodation and such leave must make it reasonably likely that the employee will be able to return to work and perform the essential functions of his or her job.

10. Believe Workers’ Compensation settlements resolve other liabilities. One size does not fit all. Obligations under the various laws are reconciled separately. During settlement negotiations, close coordination is necessary between the company’s legal, risk management, and HR departments to ensure that each office is able to accomplish its mandate without compromising the employee’s rights.

Kevin Ring is the Director of Community Growth for the Institute of WorkComp Professionals, which trains insurance agents to help employers reduce Workers’ Compensation expenses. A licensed property and casualty insurance agent, he is the co-developer of a new Workers’ Comp software suite that will help insurance professionals in working with employers. He can be contacted at 828-274-0959 or Kevin@workcompprofessionals.com .

Large Employers: Employers with 50 or more full-time equivalent employees are required to provide health insurance for their workers or face fines (ranging from $2,000-3,000 per employee) beginning in 2014.

Small Employers: On prevailing wage jobs, large contractors with the mandate for coverage will have a lower payroll burden than small contractors because they are using the fringe to pay for health insurance. And don’t overlook the importance of attracting and retaining talented workers – they will be looking for jobs which provide health insurance.

Individuals: All individuals are required to have health insurance beginning in 2014. Those who do not will face penalties which will be included on their income tax returns.

Plus, providing benefits to employees is the right thing to do. Coverage provided with fringe dollars is paid with pre-tax money and employees who are not covered at work must be underwritten on their own and pay potentially higher rates with their after tax dollars. Government contractors have fringe dollars specifically earmarked to provide benefits and significant payroll and insurance costs savings when they do.

Businesses have just over a year to get into compliance with PPACA (also called the Affordable Care Act or ACA). The good news? For government contractors working on prevailing wage jobs, the funds to cover providing health insurance for workers are already there – included in the wage determinations!  In addition to avoiding penalties, when the fringe portion of the prevailing wage is used to provide benefits like retirement plans or health insurance for employees, these dollars are not subject to payroll burden. This can result in significant savings over the life of a project.

Some contractors may believe the fringe to be “the employee’s money” but this is not so!  The fringe is an employer contribution; therefore, the employer is in the driver’s seat when it comes to deciding how to allocate it. Letting employees know that the decision to use the fringe for health insurance is a healthcare reform requirement may ease their objections to not receiving the fringe as cash.

There is no doubt that the ACA and all of its new regulations add a whole new level of complexity for government contractors who already have to worry about prevailing wage laws. Paying fines in addition to the expense of paying fringes as additional cash wages is a double hit on their bottom line. Can your clients afford to take that hit? If other bidders are benefiting from savings on payroll burden and they are not, will their bids be competitive?

Contractors can no longer afford to wait on implementing the new mandates. It’s time to start figuring out how to price in the additional costs for bids they have already won and those they are bidding on right now. What if your client currently has less than 50 full-time employees, but the project they just won will take them over 50?  Now what?  There are many, many questions around implementing the ACA. Fortunately, The Contractors Plan, powered by Fringe Benefit Group, is prepared to help you and your government contractor clients understand the new legislation and how to comply with the multitude of new requirements. Fringe Benefit Group has specialized in providing quality benefits for prevailing wage workers for more than 30 years and we are fully prepared to help advisors navigate the maze of health care reform.

About the author

Adam Bonsky is executive vice president of government markets for Fringe Benefit Group, which has been helping the construction industry design and administer fringe benefit programs since 1983. For more information on prevailing wage benefit plans and bidding on government jobs, visit www.thecontractorsplan.com. Adam may be reached at (800) 662-6177 or abonsky@fringebenefitgroup.com.

New NCCI Rulings… NCCI has recently made significant changes to the split point that will ultimately affect the experience mod.

The split point will be increased from $5,000 to $15,000 over a 3-year transition period. After the transition, the split point will be indexed for claim inflation in subsequent updates. Filing for these changes will likely be made in 3rd quarter this year. This change will take effect in 2013, based on each state’s usual rate filing date. For some, it will be 1/1/13, for others later in the year.

NCCI’s data indicates that close to 80% of experience mods will change plus or minus five points. The modification of the split point will most substantially impact the very best and very worst mods. Each company will be affected differently based on the costs of their employee injuries.

A big positive for all businesses is that every company’s lowest possible mod will drop. This means that employers will have greater control over what they pay for workers’ compensation than they have before. For companies that take command of their workers’ comp program, the opportunities have never been better to reduce their costs, even though rates are increasing in many states.

In summary, we may just be skimming the surface of what’s in store for our industry in 2012. But unless the Mayan calendar had it right and everything comes to a screeching halt on December 21, 2012, you can pretty much bet 2013 will be even more exciting.

Rising Medical Costs and Prescription Drugs… Medical costs continue to soar and it can be attributed to several factors which are, in some ways, related. In many states, employers let the employees choose what doctor they want to see when injured, and employees are most likely to choose their family doctor. The problem here is the family physician sees the worker as their client. So if the employee asks for a week off, the doctor will grant it. Why not? Most family physicians have no experience with occupational medicine or the importance of getting employees back to work.

Another area of growing concern is the type of drugs being prescribed to injured workers and their long-term effects. According to a recent article in USA TODAY, the biggest drug problem in America isn’t the heroin being mainlined in a back alley or the cocaine being ingested in some run-down crack house. In actuality, it’s the prescription painkillers sitting in a medicine cabinet in Middle America, to the point that they kill 18,000 people per year. And don’t think this hasn’t raised an eyebrow to workers’ compensation payers, who are on the lookout to ensure that addictive drugs that are over-prescribed by doctors aren’t affecting workers’ comp cases. Evidence has shown that some doctors are prescribing pain medication usually targeted for cancer patients for simple back strains.

According to Gregory L. Johnson, a health care management consultant, “There is an increase in medical costs as a percentage of all claims; there is an increase in pharma as a percentage of all medical costs. And there is an increase in opioids as a percentage of pharma. So it’s driving a lot of overall loss results in workers’ comp.”

Another industry expert contends that employers may find themselves not only paying for the medication but also funding detox programs, drug overdose claims and treatment for long-term side effects. It’s imperative that employers, doctors, claimants and insurance carriers all get on the same page to make sure such abuse does not occur.

The Need for Wellness Plans…. Healthier employees lead to lower premiums. If companies can help their workers improve their health without cutting benefits or shifting more premium costs to employees, why aren’t smaller companies using this proven method to lower their health care costs?

Randy Boss, a Risk Architect with Ottawa Kent Insurance in Grand Rapids, MI, helps companies implement successful wellness programs. And he says he can understand how employers feel.  “They’re frustrated because most likely they have tried things that didn’t work,” says Boss. “Businesses tend to think short-term and not long-term, and expect to see solid and immediate savings on their healthcare costs.”

Yet, the benefits of having healthy workers transcend reduced health care costs, including Workers’ Compensation and lower absenteeism. Healthy workers are less prone to injury and when injured, they recover quicker than less healthy workers. If workers change and modify their lifestyle and reduce their health risks, medical costs decline.

A University of Michigan study of a Midwest utility company’s workplace wellness program found that over nine years, the utility company spent $7.3 million for the program and reaped $12.1 million in savings. Medical and pharmacy costs, time off and Worker’s Compensation factored into the savings. The study, which took into account a number of costs, including indirect costs of implementing wellness programs, such as recruitment and the cost of changing menus, showed that wellness programs work long-term even though employees aged during the course of the study.

Companies need to make a commitment to helping their employees stay in better shape. Says Randy Boss, “If companies don’t have the ability to fire all their old workers and hire young workers, then they need to concentrate on what they can control…the risk factors. That’s where a health & wellness program comes in. But to be successful you need high participation… preferably over 85%. We’ve been fortunate to have a 94% record without having to pay employees to participate.  We do this by motivating and educating employees so they take the action steps to get the results.”

An effective wellness plan only works if implemented from the top down. “We see participation rates up to 70%-80% with management support and incentives, but only 10%-20% without it,” says Susan Butterworth, director of Oregon Health Sciences University Health Management Services.

More than halfway through the year, we can now look back at a five areas that are molding 2012 into a year we should be paying attention to. Here are the first two:

The Aging Workforce… Their coming was foretold in 2008, when the first Baby Boomer hit 62 and filed for Social Security. The Institute on Aging at the University of North Carolina has released data showing that 20% of workers will be 55 or older by 2020.

Although older workers tend to get injured less on the job, when they do get hurt we find larger claims and more days off the job. According to a report by The National Council on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) a determining factor in the high claims cost can be traced back to older workers having higher salaries so their compensation for loss-work time is higher. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), older workers take an average of 15 days off per injury compared to one day off for younger workers. Plus, they require more extensive medical treatment then, say, a teenage worker. Factor in the statistics showing older workers are less likely to return to work after an injury (in some cases over 80% less likely, compared to 12% for a worker in his 20s), and you see a disturbing trend.

The best we can do when it comes to getting an aging workforce back on the floor is to make a concentrated effort to customize the return-to-work program based on the severity of the injury, age, existing medical conditions, etc.  In other words, ease workers back into the fold and make the workplace conducive to them, even it’s simply making sure there is enough bright light in the work area  (the eyes always seem to be the first thing to go ).

Off-Site Workers… In an age of technology, where more and more workers are doing their jobs from their homes, we are seeing a whole new can of Work Comp worms open up.

According to World at Work’s “2011 Survey on Workplace Flexibility,” in 2010, 26.2 million U.S. workers conducted business outside the office. Companies see the advantages of home-based work (i.e. a decrease in absenteeism, reduced stress), but overlook an untapped area of risk.  Two recent cases illustrate what may be a disturbing trend. A New Jersey court granted workers’ compensation survivor benefits to the family of a woman who dies of a blood clot while sitting at her computer doing work. That same month in Oregon, a court ruled in favor of a claim brought by a woman who broke her wrist when she tripped over her dog while carrying supplies from her home to her car.

So how do employers monitor “at-home” risk?  Perhaps it is as simple as having someone visit the home and make sure everything is ergonomically in order and void of any clutter or potential hazards. It’s also been suggested that the employer photograph the workspace. A more extreme maneuver would be to invest funds in the workspace and set it up for the worker.  This could be a one-time cost versus a much higher cost down the road should the worker somehow suddenly fall out of their chair and break a hip. As for making sure any injury happens on “work time,” experts suggest having the worker log in on their computer so time at work and time off can be tracked. No employer wants to pay a claim because one of their workers hurt his back while lifting a turkey out of the oven on Thanksgiving.

This morning the US Supreme Court upheld President Obama’s Health Care Affordability Act. The court essentially ruled it’s penalty provisions where akin to a tax. So what does this mean for insurance brokers and their clients? Here are a few of my quick thoughts:

1.       If you have been avoiding learning the law hoping it would somehow be overturned it’s time get reading. The best place to start is http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/healthreform/ It is important to know the law not just as a broker or boss, but to also protect your family. Knowledge is power, so read it.

2.       Revisit the thinking behind benefits in the first place. Why do we even have them? To attract employees, to retain employees and to motive them by showing that we care. And to do those things better than our competitors. Remember that while pay is an economic contract, benefits have been traditionally been viewed as a social contract. Bang for the buck a dollar spent on a social contract offering is worth more than one spent on an economic one. Currently employees view their benefits as more important than their base pay. Even if it eventually flips back the other way it’s a 50/50 deal. If we choose to offer benefits, the more an employee pays for them, less  it becomes a social contract. We must also constantly market the benefit to get the value in hiring , retention and motivation, as in the words of Barbers Book of 1000 Proverbs, “The greatest benefit is the one last remembered.”

3.       The main point is this: don’t underestimate the value of benefits and make sure to squeeze every ounce of value out of providing them!

4.       Of course, the ultimate solution is better health. For starters, obesity is killing us. Employers would be wise to invest in wellness programs and healthy food offerings. Provide free healthy food, easy to access filtered water, etc. no matter the size or make-up of your company. The payback in productivity, etc. will more than offset the cost. Think of it this way: would you rather have your employee go for fast food 5 days a week or the free salad in the lunchroom? Who do you think performs better all afternoon?

5.       We will conduct a Webinar on this decision and what it means for you in the next few days.

Below is a brief summary of the decision. You can read it in its entirety by going to http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

Finally, the relationship between your agent and your Human Resources Department is the key in making sure you are not hiring a walking, talking Work Comp claim. Here’s why:

5. Is your agent working closely with your Human Resources Department? Agents who build a positive relationship with HR personnel are doing everyone a favor. In today’s economy, most HR departments are under staffed, and may accidentally hire what is known as a “Workers’ Compensation claim,” someone who has a track record at other jobs of filing claims, particularly those of the “soft tissue” variety.

Agents can be helpful by sharing their pre-employment experience in medical and drug screening, background checks, and knowing not only what to ask in the interview process, but how to ask it, based on the physical requirement of a position. How not to assume that a 6-foot, 240-pound man can easily lift 50-pound boxes off a truck, when a simple medical test may show that there’s a past history of back trouble that limits lifting to only 20-pound boxes. And their knowledge of how to withdraw a job offer may be very helpful to you.

Use the Workers’ Compensation skills your agent has been instilled with, and chances are you will reap the rewards.

(Photo credit: Lumaxart.com)

3. Is your agent involved in the premium audit from the beginning. When agents don’t get involved in helping you with your premium audits until after the fact, there’s a good chance you may be receiving an unexpected bill.

But by then it’s like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. It’s important that agent be more proactive and more involved in the process before the auditor shows up on your doorstep. By doing so, they can discuss with you before the fact such items as what percentage of the payroll applies to Workers’ Compensation and what doesn’t.

Times have changed. When the economy was booming, and rates were going up, you would immediately question your agent on why a $5,000 bill arrived in the mail. The agent would review the account, explain the situation, and even if the bill still had to be paid, at least he made the effort.

Today, as Workers’ Comp rates decline and payrolls have thinned out, employers are likely to receive a check in the mail for a Workers’ Compensation rebate check instead of a bill. Since it’s a check, chances are you aren’t going to question your agent about it. But by not having that conversation, you are denying the agent the opportunity to determine if maybe you qualify for additional funds. Get the agent involved from the outset.

4. Is your agent letting the insurance companies handle 100% of the claims? When a worker is injured on the job, your first inclination is to call the insurance company. Makes sense since the agent isn’t the one who cuts the checks. But in truth, the agent should be involved when there is an injury to monitor the process. By doing so, the agent can keep you updated on all communication between the medical staff and the adjuster, find out when the injured worker can return to work, make sure there is a plan in place for that to happen, and generally keep the flow of communication moving between the doctors, your HR department and insurance company.

By not getting involved, the agent is pushing all the responsibility to the insurance company, a third party that you have no direct relationship with. Why not have another set of trained eyes keeping track of claims? What better way to facilitate getting an injured employee back to work as quickly as possible.

(Photo credit joebeone)