Workers Comp Benchmarking Analysis

Case Study

Manufacturing

2010

SAFETY AND HEALTH STATISTICS BENCHMARKING ANALYSIS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION EXPERIENCE MOD EXAMINATION

PREPARED BY: JOHN C. KELLER, CRM ARM CIC AAI

RISK MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT

Results

Praxiom Risk Management LLC 809 E. Bloomingdale Ave., #300 Brandon, FL 33511

Case Study ‐ Manufacturing

Safety and Health Benchmarking Analysis

Page 2 of 18

Table of Contents

Introduction

3


4

WC Experience Modification Rate (EMR) Examination

10

Total Cost of WC Accidents

15

Conclusion

17

Appendix

18



Page 3 of 18

INTRODUCTION

Background Founded in xxxx and with five regional production facilities in Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, xxxxx has been serving the eastern half of the U.S. with the manufacturing of traditional forms and digital print related products and services. They are ranked among the top 10 independent forms manufacturers in the U.S. in sales volume, but are among the leaders in short to medium‐run custom forms. xxxxx operates with additional entities known as xxxxx, xxxxx, and xxxxx.

Regarding the Workers’ Compensation program, xxxxx, currently carries a $xx,xxx per claim deductible. This limit has been increased from the $xx,xxx deductible carried from 2007 – 2009 and various state specific, net‐reporting small deductibles during the policy years 2005 – 2007.

Benchmarking & EMR Assessment Overview

The assessment includes a review of available documentation (such as historical claims, EMR, and exposure data), and countrywide industry results. This report includes a summary of our findings and a high level strategy for improving Safety and Health practices, Workers’ Compensation experience and lowering the WC EMR, where applicable. The report is divided into five (4) sections:

1) Safety and Health Statistics Benchmarking Analysis – A multi‐level comparison of OSHA log and Workers’ Compensation results vs. information from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) and industry peers.

2) Workers’ Compensation Experience Modification Rate (EMR) Examination – Details on the minimum and controllable portions of the EMR and historical claims impact on the current EMR.

3) Total Cost of WC Accidents – Outline of the developed direct and indirect costs associated with WC accidents and their impact on profitability

4) Conclusion – A high‐level overview of the critical findings from the Benchmarking Analysis, EMR Examination, and Total Accident Cost Impact on Profitability.

Assisting with the analysis was:

‐ John Keller, ARM, CIC, AAI – Risk Management Advisor ‐ David E. Carothers, CSP, ARM ‐ Managing Partner, Praxiom Risk Management



Page 4 of 18


The Benchmarking Analysis is an evaluation tool that: • Benchmarks your results against other SIC specific companies • Identifies opportunities to improve your outcomes

This report summarizes a comparison between xxxxx and similar companies insured by Liberty Mutual (Wausau) in SIC 2761, using several risk management outcome measures. The loss values are not developed to their likely ultimate cost. Loss rates are based on estimated payroll dollars supplied by each employer.

xxxxx is also compared to companies in the NAICS code 232110 with information obtained from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS). Most recent data available is through 2008.

Benchmarking Data

5 Year Period (2005 – 2009) xxxxx Liberty Mutual

SIC 2761 A Total Incurred $1,677,302 $6,840,301 B Total Registered Claims 251 1,031 C Total Registered Claims (>$0) 197 834 D Closed w/o Settlement Ratio 21.6% 19.1% E Estimated Payroll $95,092,907 $1,142,466,000

F Average Cost per Claim (>$0) $8,514 $8,202

G Loss Rate / $100 Payroll $1.76 $0.60

H Non‐$0 Claim Frequency Rate / $1MM Payroll 2.07 0.73 I # of Lost Time Claims 32 127

J Lost Time Ratio 12.8% 15.3% K # of Claims >$10K 22 108

L % of Claims >$10K 8.8% 13.0%

M % of Incurred >$10K 81.0% 87.0%

N Lost Time Closure Rate 84.4% 87.4%

O # of Litigated Lost Time Claims 5 32 P Litigation Ratio 15.6% 25.2% Q Average Cost per Litigated Claim $181,722 $103,079 R Total # of Disabilities Days 3,190 15,315 S Disability Day Rate / $1MM Payroll 33.5 13.4 T Median Report Lag 1.0 3.0

U PPO Penetration 75.9% 65.7% V Total Medical Charged $1,289,744 $6,233,578 X Duplicate/Core/Professional Savings $728,180 $3,497,892

Y Professional Savings Ratio 56.5% 56.2%

Better than SIC Industry

Worse than SIC Industry ? Data not readily available



Page 5 of 18

3.15

1.14

0.730.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

$16,000,000

$16,500,000

$17,000,000

$17,500,000

$18,000,000

$18,500,000

$19,000,000

$19,500,000

$20,000,000

$20,500,000

05 ‐ 06 06 ‐ 07 07 ‐ 08 08 ‐ 09 09 ‐ 10*

Freq

uency Ra

te

Total Payroll

Policy Year

Payroll & Freqency Rate

Payroll WBF Freq Rate SIC 27 Freq Rate


xxxxx Loss History (as of 4/30/2010)

05 – 06 06 – 07 07 – 08 08 – 09 09 – 10* Payroll $ 20,000,000 $ 20,125,123 $ 19,722,307 $ 17,733,477 $ 17,512,000

Non‐$0 claims 63 38 48 28 20 Comp $ 186,217 $ 7,486 $ 440,304 $ 21,465 $ 40,692 Med $ 170,440 $ 42,142 $ 427,708 $ 82,439 $ 119,348 Exp $ 41,510 $ 8,956 $ 49,805 $ 9,442 $ 29,348

Total Incurred $ 398,167 $ 58,584 $ 917,817 $ 113,346 $ 189,388

*Partial Year Results

XXXXX Freq Rate 3.15 1.89 2.43 1.58 1.14

SIC 27 Freq Rate 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73

XXXXX Loss Rate $ 1.99 $ 0.29 $ 4.65 $ 0.64 $ 1.08

SIC 27 Loss Rate $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60 $ 0.60

• The majority of the benchmark criteria show xxxxx ahead of industry ratios, but the 5‐year

average for the two most critical benchmarks of claim frequency rate and incurred loss rate are significantly above industry.



Page 6 of 18

Data Definitions

• Loss rate/$100 of payroll: Total loss dollars/total payroll per $100. • Non‐$0 claim frequency rate/$1MM of payroll: Total number of non‐$0 claims/total payroll per

$1MM.

Data Interpretation: Loss & Claim Frequency Rates

• A high loss rate suggests one or more of the following: ∗ a number of high cost claims have incurred ∗ slower closure rates ∗ unchallenged carrier reserving practices ∗ late claim reporting ∗ discrepancy in expense definition and chargeback

• A low loss rate suggests: ∗ loss hazards have been identified ∗ appropriate safety programs have been implemented and enforced

• A high frequency rate suggests: ∗ Safety controls are absent or not appropriately reinforced ∗ Employee behaviors need to be aligned to specific job standards

• A low frequency rate suggests: ∗ safety procedures and controls are documented, implemented, and understood ∗ Company may not be reporting all of its claims.

$0.29

$4.65

$1.08

$0.60

$‐

$0.50

$1.00

$1.50

$2.00

$2.50

$3.00

$3.50

$4.00

$4.50

$5.00

$‐

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

$1,000,000

05 ‐ 06 06 ‐ 07 07 ‐ 08 08 ‐ 09 09 ‐ 10*

Loss Rate

Total Incurred

Policy Year

Total Incurred & Loss Rate

Total Incurred WBF Loss Rate SIC 27 Loss Rate



Page 7 of 18

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

US 4.6 4.2 4.3 3.8 3.3

WBF

0

1

2

3

4

5

Incide

nt Rate

per 10

0 ee's

Total Incident Rate vs NAICS 323110Comparative Stats from BLS

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

US 1.3 1.1 1.2 1.1 0.9

WBF

0

0.25

0.5

0.75

1

1.25

Lost Tim

e Ca

ses

per 10

0 ee's

Lost Time Rate vs NAICS 323110Comparative Stats from BLS


• A review of xxxxx’s OHSA 300 logs is required to complete the comparison to BLS statistics.



Page 8 of 18

Machine15%

Material Handling28%

Repeated Trauma7%

Slip and Fall12%

Struck by20%

Other18%

Wise Business FormsPercentage of Cases by Accident Cause


Machine10%

Slip and Fall11%

Struck by19%

Repeated Trauma8%

Other22%

SIC 2761Percentage of Cases by Accident Cause

LOSS SOURCE ANALYSIS

• Top five loss areas, regarding claim count, for xxxxx are consistent with the top five loss areas for the SIC industry.

• Machine injuries represent only 15% of xxxxx’s total claims but a disproportionate 51% of the incurred dollars. The claimant 1 claim ($728,900) is significantly distorting the incurred percentage.

• None of xxxxx’s additional loss sources included in “Other” was higher than 7% of the total claims.



Page 9 of 18

Machine51%


Repeated Trauma5%

Slip and Fall3% Struck by

3%

Other7%

Wise Business FormsPercentage Incurred by Accident Cause


Machine26%

Slip and Fall9%

Struck by8%

Repeated Trauma7%

Other10%

SIC 2761Percentage Incurred by Accident Cause

LOSS SOURCE ANALYSIS (Continued)

• Top five loss areas, regarding incurred costs, for xxxxx are consistent with the top five loss areas for the SIC industry.

• As of 4/30/10 6 of xxxxx’s largest 10 claims, in the last 5 years, were still open and could impact the loss source ratios moving forward.

• Slip and falls represent 12% of all claims (1% higher than the industry), but only 3% of all incurred costs (6% less than industry). Special care should be taken regarding this loss area to prevent the potential high value claim.



Page 10 of 18

WC EXPERIENCE MOD EXAMINATION

The Mod Formula

APL + B + (W x AEL) + (1‐W) x EEL EPL + B + (W x EEL) + (1‐W) x EEL

The mod formula looks complex, but it is carefully designed to take into consideration industry averages, company size, and loss history. Actual losses are compared to expected losses but a ballast value is used to "stabilize" the formula and to move all mods closer to 1.00. The weighting value increases for larger companies and places more emphasis on the actual loss history as the company increases in size.

Your 2009 Mod Calculation

1.06 = 87518 + 50317 + (0.27 x 297846) + (1 – 0.27) x 246812 76999 + 50317 + (0.27 x 246812) + (1 – 0.27) x 246812

As a business owner or financial manager, it is important to identify and understand every cost associated with doing business. The workers' compensation modification factor for Your Company has a significant impact on the cost of workers' compensation insurance. This alone is reason enough to better understand the underlying theory, formula, and data that determines your modification factor. However, the experience rating worksheet, which is used to communicate the modification factor, can also provide valuable insight into your company's operation. The following pages of this report explain, with minimal industry jargon, the experience rating formula and the computation of the modification factor. For convenience, the workers' compensation modification factor will be referred to as the "mod" throughout the report. This report will show you how low your mod could be, the potential savings, and the true cost of your losses. Mod synopsis provided by QuickMod.



Page 11 of 18

WC EXPERIENCE MOD EXAMINATION (Continued)

The Minimum and Controllable Mod:

Mod Value Premium

Minimum mod (mod with no losses) 0.62 $ 170.500 Mod increase due to primary losses 0.23 $ 63,250 Mod increase due to excess losses 0.21 $ 57,750

Total controllable mod 0.44 $ 121,000 Mod 1.06 $ 291,500

Mod Description Mod Premium Average Mod 1.00 $ 275,000 Current Mod 1.06 $ 291,500 Minimum Mod 0.62 $ 170,500 Controllable Mod 0.44 $ 121,000

Your mod is currently 1.06 and you are paying an estimated manual premium in NCCI states of $291,500. If you were able to prevent all losses, then you could lower your mod to 0.62 and save $121,000. An average competitor with a mod of 1.00 is paying $275,000 for similar workers compensation insurance coverage. This puts your company at a $16,500 disadvantage as compared to your average competitor.

$275,000

$291,500

$170,500

$121,000

Average Mod

Current Mod

Minimum Mod

Controllable Mod

Premium $



Page 12 of 18

WC EXPERIENCE MOD EXAMINATION (Continued) Analysis of Primary and Excess Losses: As part of the experience rating process, losses are "split" into two categories called primary and excess. Primary losses are the first $5,000 of each claim. Excess losses are all amounts over the first $5,000 of each claim. The amount of primary losses you have is then used as a way to measure loss frequency. The amount of excess losses is then a measure of loss severity. Because underwriters are generally worried more about loss frequency, the mod formula is designed to allow primary losses to have a larger impact on the mod than excess losses. This report compares actual vs. expected losses for both primary and excess losses and provides a written evaluation of the ratio. Ratio of actual primary losses to expected primary losses 114% Your Company has experienced a level of primary losses that is higher than expected. A high level of primary losses greatly increases your modification factor. The level of primary losses is an indication of the loss frequency. Your company is experiencing more losses than expected. This makes your company vulnerable to loss severity. Ratio of actual excess losses to expected excess losses 121% Your company has experienced a level of excess losses that is higher than expected. A high level of excess losses increases your modification factor. The bigger your company, the more emphasis is placed on excess losses and the bigger the impact of excess losses on your modification factor. The level of excess losses is an indication of the severity of each claim. On average, each loss your company incurs is more severe than would be expected.

Incurred Value to increase Mod by 0.01 Primary ~$ 3,500 Excess ~$ 13,000

$0$50,000$100,000$150,000$200,000$250,000$300,000$350,000$400,000$450,000

Actual Expected

Loss Amou

nt

Actual vs. Expected Losses

Primary Excess



Page 13 of 18

WC EXPERIENCE MOD EXAMINATION (Continued) Loss Sensitivity Analysis and the "True" Cost of a Loss

Impact Mod without Increase in Premium Claimant Date Loss Amount on Mod This loss 1 year 2 year 3 Year

#Claimant 1 08/06/07 $ 151,547 0.1191 0.9458 $ 32,753 $ 65,506 $ 98,259

Claimant 2 12/11/07 $ 55,313 0.0497 1.0153 $ 13,668 $ 27,336 $ 41,004

Claimant 3 12/11/08 $ 28,308 0.0302 1.0348 $ 8,305 $ 16,610 $ 24,915

Claimant 4 07/27/07 $ 17,622 0.0225 1.0425 $ 6,188 $ 12,376 $ 18,564

Claimant 5 09/28/07 $ 15,306 0.0208 1.0441 $ 5,720 $ 11,440 $ 17,160 # Limited loss

This analysis computes the true cost of a loss. Each loss in the calculation increases the mod and increases the premium paid. The data used to compute a mod covers a three year period. So, each loss stays in the mod computation three years. Therefore, we can estimate the true cost of a loss in the terms of the resulting increase in premium over the three year period. From the table above, we can see that the 8/06/07 Claimant 1 claim was limited to a total of $151,547 (down from the total incurred of $698,250) and increased the mod by 0.1191. This will result in an increase in premium of $98,259 over the course of three years, and is the direct premium cost associated with this claim. All of the above claims included indemnity payments which disqualifies them from a 70% reduction prior to the claim value being included in the mod calculation. The 70% reduction for med‐only claims offers a significant incentive for all companies in Experience Rating Adjustment (ERA) approved states to maintain effective return to work and light duty programs. The 70% reduction in med‐only claims also offers an incentive to report all claims to the insurance carrier. The Claimant 2 claim from 12/11/07, while still open, was found to be incorrectly reported to the NCCI. The current EMR worksheet values the claim at a total of $55,313, but the current loss runs only have a med/indemnity incurred value of $40,194. This $15,119 difference is increasing the current 2010 EMR by .011 which translates into additional standard premium of $3,025.



Page 14 of 18

$11,026 $19,956$25,910

$3,308$7,773

$5,000

$20,000

$30,000

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$-

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

$1,000 $3,000 $5,000 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

Sin

gle

Cla

im V

alu

e

Pre

miu

m I

ncr

ease

Du

e to

Mod

Single Claim Value

Claim Value Impact on Premium

3-year premium increase - w/ Indemnity 3-year premium increase - Med Only Claim amount

WC EXPERIENCE MOD EXAMINATION (Continued) Single Claim Value Impact on Premium

This analysis shows the correspondence of claim value to premium increase due to the mod, it does not contemplate offsetting discretionary or deductible credits commonly used by an underwriter. Since a 70% credit is applied to medical only claims filed in Experience Rating Adjustment (ERA) approved states. This is represented by the bottom (Blue) line in the graph. Medical only claims in all other states and all claims that include indemnity payments are represented by the red line in the graph. The claim value benchmark is represented by the solid black line. This graph illustrates that a $5,000 claim, which includes indemnity, will increase the mod and corresponding premium by ~$11,026. The virtual "break even" point is with a $20,000 claim (including indemnity) which generates an increase in premium of ~$19,956. For all claim values >$20,000 the corresponding increase in premium is less than that of the claim.



Page 15 of 18

TOTAL COST OF WC ACCIDENTS

Loss Development and Indirect Costs

A Loss Development Factor (LDF) is used by insurance carriers to project what your company’s claims will ultimately cost. The LDF includes an adjustment to claim reserves for "development" of claims and incurred but not reported losses (IBNR). The LDF can be a national or state rate and will vary by policy year (older policy periods will have a lower LDF since claims have matured somewhat).

Indirect costs consist of a multitude of factors such as downtime, dissatisfied customers, operating delays, costs to train and compensate a replacement worker and temporary labor. Indirect costs, while less obvious, can significantly impact your business' financials and profitability.

Studies show that the ratio of indirect to direct costs varies from a high of 20:1 to a low of 1:1. OSHA studies indicate the indirect cost of an accident to be 4.5x the direct cost. We have taken a conservative approach and are using a 2:1 ratio to calculate your indirect costs. We have also taken the conservative route of not including NPV trending of the total accident costs.

xxxxx

Loss History (as of 4/30/2010) 05 – 06 06 ‐ 07 07 ‐ 08 08 ‐ 09 09 ‐ 10*

Payroll $20,000,000 $20,125,123 $19,722,307 $17,733,477 $17,512,000 Non‐$0 claims 63 38 48 28 20

Comp $ 186,217 $ 7,486 $ 440,304 $ 21,465 $ 40,692 Med $ 170,440 $ 42,142 $ 427,708 $ 82,439 $ 119,348 Exp $ 41,510 $ 8,956 $ 49,805 $ 9,442 $ 29,348

Total Incurred $ 398,167 $ 58,584 $ 917,817 $ 113,346 $ 189,388 LD Factor 1.10 1.25 1.50 1.75 2.00

Developed Losses $ 437,984 $ 73,230 $ 1,376,726 $ 198,356 $ 378,776 Indirect Factor 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 Indirect Costs $ 796,334 $ 117,168 $ 1,835,634 $ 226,692 $ 378,776

Total Accident Cost $ 1,234,318 $ 190,398 $ 3,212,360 $ 425,048 $ 757,552

5‐Year Average $ 1,163,935 3‐Year Ave. excl H/L $ 805,639



Page 16 of 18

Financial Impact of Injuries on Profitability The following analysis was performed to give your management team a different perspective on the impact accidents can have on your business’ overall performance.

REVENUE/SALES REQUIRE TO COVER WC COSTS

Estimated Annual Sales $62,500,000 Profit Margin (assume 5%) $3,125,000 3‐Year Selected Avg. Total Accident Cost (05‐10) $805,639 Additional sales required to offset accident costs $16,112,780 Average Sales/day (Estimated Annual Sales / 365) $171,233 Additional days of sales required to offset losses 94.1 Days

Clearly, company revenues are being diverted to replace profits lost due to accident costs. Your company’s risk management performance is a critical component of your business’ long‐term financial success.



Page 17 of 18

CONCLUSION Safety and Health Statistics Benchmarking Analysis • Frequency and Loss Rate are significantly above SIC industry average (2.07 v 0.73 and $1.76 v $0.60,

respectively). This is typically an indicator of disconnection between positive management attitude toward safety, the implementation of job specific safety protocols, and employee behavior. Additional hands‐on safety and loss control consulting may be needed to identify frequency and loss drivers.

• Median report lag time (1 day) is well above industry average (3 days). Claim procedures seem to be well understood and efficiently filed.

• PPO penetration (75.9%) is well above industry average (65.7%). xxxxx is experiencing opportunities for cost containment above industry average due proper direction of claimants within the network PPO.

• OSHA 300 logs are required to complete the Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) comparison. 5 years of BLS data have been provided as a baseline.

The Experience Modification Rate (EMR) Examination • When comparing xxxxx’s current EMR (1.06) to its minimum mod of 0.62, this leaves xxxxx with a

controllable mod of 0.44. The premium value of the controllable mod is $121,000. This premium value can be realized through the effective implementation of safety, loss control, and claims management measures.

• An evaluation of primary (<$5,000) and excess (>$5,000) claims showed xxxxx exceeded industry averages for both claim categories. This confirms the elevated frequency and loss rates found in the benchmarking analysis.

• An error was found in the calculation of the 2010 EMR. The Claimant 2 claim from 12/11/07, while still open, was found to be incorrectly reported to the NCCI. The current EMR worksheet values the claim at a total of $55,313, but the current loss runs report a med/indemnity incurred value of $40,194. This $15,119 difference is increasing the current 2010 EMR by .011 which translates into additional modified premium of $3,025. A petition to the NCCI should be made to correct the EMR and refund the premium.

• The EMR exam revealed that XXXXX will pay more in increased premium for all claims, which included indemnity, at a value of ~$20,000 or less. Proper selection of filed claims and deductible levels will positively impact XXXXX accident costs and EMR.

Loss Development and Indirect Costs • xxxxx’s developed, selected average WC accident cost since 2005 is $805,639 per year. This

translates (at a 5% margin) into 94.1 days just to pay for WC accidents.



Page 18 of 18

APPENDIX

Government and Regulatory Sites

• Engineering & Safety Services: http://www3.iso.com/ess/ • Occupational Safety & Health Administration: http://www.osha.gov/ • National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health: http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/homepage.html • Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupation‐Related Statistics: http://stats.bls.gov/oshhome.htm • Department of Transportation: http://www.dot.gov/ • Bureau of Transportation Statistics: http://www.bts.gov/ • National Infrastructure Protection Center: http://www.nipc.gov/

Safety Councils, Organizations, and Other Safety Sites

• A.M. Best Company: http://www.ambest.com/ • American National Standards Institute: http://web.ansi.org/ • American Occupational Therapy Association: http://www.aota.org/ • AFL‐CIO & Safety: http://www.aflcio.org/safety/ • American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists, Inc: http://www.acgih.org/ • American Society of Safety Engineers: http://www.asse.org/ • Compliance Magazine: http://www.compliancemag.com/ • Finnish Institute of Occupational Health: http://www.occuphealth.fi/e/ • IBM Healthy Computing: http://www.pc.ibm.com/ww/healthycomputing/ • Institution of Occupational Safety and Health: http://www.iosh.co.uk/home.cfm • International Hazard Datasheets on Occupation: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/safework/cis/products/hdo/htm/index.htm

• National Coalition on Ergonomics: http://www.ncergo.org/ • National Safety Council: http://www.nsc.org/ • Professional Safety: http://www.asse.org/bprofe.htm • Safety Info: http://www.safetyinfo.com • Safety Online Newsletter: http://www.safetyonline.com/subscribe/1573873 • Security Resource Net’s Corporate Safety: http://nsi.org/safety.html • Teen Worker Safety: http://www.dol.gov/dol/opa/public/summer/employer.htm • The Insurance Guide: http://www.insure.com • Thomas Register: http://thomasregister.com • Typing Injury Frequently Asked Questions: http://www.tifaq.com/ • United Auto Workers: http://www.uaw.org/publications/h&s/index.html • Workplace Eye Safety, Prevent Blindness America: http://www.preventblindness.org/safety/worksafe.html3