search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Trends in Workers’ Compensation W


orkers’ compensation – payment and other benefits for injured workers – is one of the thornier issues facing manufacturers today. How does an employer maintain an insurance policy catered to employees’ needs while keeping an eye on its bottom line? The chal- lenge stems from the fact that, as one insurer puts it, workers’ compensation is highly regulated, difficult to manage, varies by state, and can have a big impact on a company’s operations. Several factors affect a manufacturer’s approach to work- ers’ compensation, including the firm’s size and location. For example, in 14 states, employers with five employees or fewer are not required to obtain workers’ compensation coverage. It is therefore particularly difficult for small shops, which make up a sizable portion of U.S. manufacturing, to budget for low-risk, high-cost injuries for workers. For large multinational manufacturers, having more em- ployees can increase the odds of a worker getting injured. It is crucial for such firms to have a clear understanding of the probability that a worker is injured on the job, and of the cost-structure scenarios for caring for the employee that could ensue. Workplace injuries vary by sector. Eye injuries, which can be expensive, are more common in manufacturing than in other sectors, according to one study. Meanwhile, strains and sprains, and cuts and punctures made up half of manufacturing injuries, according to a survey by a leading insurer between 2010 and 2014. Having access to extensive industry data on injuries is a prerequisite for a good compen- sation policy. There are other external issues beyond a manufacturer’s


control that weigh heavily on a compensation policy. Accord- ing to the Insurance Information Institute (III), “a major benefits issue still to be resolved in some states is the imbalance


36 AdvancedManufacturing.org | August 2017


between levels of compensation for various degrees of impair- ment. Permanent partial disabilities tend to be overcompen- sated and permanent total disability undercompensated.” Complicating matters is the chain of liability for a work- place accident. For example, an employee may sue a manu- facturer of a machine for the gear’s role in injuring him or her, and the machine manufacturer may in turn sue the employer. In such cases, liability coverage can protect the employer from being held liable for the injury. Workers’ compensation packages are set to evolve as the manufacturing workforce continues to modernize. For now, however, “workers’ compensation has not caught up to the modern era where a significant portion of the workforce is self-employed and that percentage is growing,” states a synopsis of a recent National Council on Compensation Insurance conference. “Most states exclude sole proprietors from having workers’ compensation coverage so we have a growing percentage of the workforce without coverage.” One simple but often overlooked way for companies to manage risk related to compensation claims is timely com- munication. The quicker an insurer is notified of an injury, the quicker the worker can recover and less likely he or she is to seek an attorney, according to III. “Electronic communication has enhanced procedures to speed up the ‘first notice of claim’ filing process to the work- ers’ compensation administrative office,” the institute noted. Above all, a sound workers’ compensation policy starts


with a thorough injury-prevention policy. Extensive research has documented how robust injury prevention programs can reduce workers’ compensation costs, which remain high. Benefit payments made under federal and state workers’ compensation programs were $62.3 billion in 2014, according to the Social Security Administration’s most recent data.


40-1691 6/2017


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100