Workers’ Compensation · Workers’ compensation provides medical care, reha - bilitation, and cash benefits for workers who are injured on the job or who contract work related

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.


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


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


Figure 2Workers’ Compensation Medical and Cash Benefits Per $100 of Covered Wages, 1980–2012


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.


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


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 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.


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,


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


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.


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’ 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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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


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.



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.


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.


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


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).


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.


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)


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.


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

)


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.


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)


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.


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

.


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.


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.


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.


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

.


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


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.


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.


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


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


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.


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,


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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.



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.


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.



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


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).


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

.


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


Appendix B: Federal Programs


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.


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



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.


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.


(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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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.


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.


www.nasi.orgPrice $75.00ISBN: 1-884902-61-3

Documents

Workers’ Compensation · Workers’ compensation provides medical care, reha - bilitation, and cash benefits for workers who are injured on the job or who contract work related