Thursday, February 21, 2013
Waiting periods are a very common feature in US workers’ compensation systems but are relatively rare in the Canadian context and absent from Australian systems. A waiting period in workers’ compensation is a form of worker deductible. Most commonly, waiting periods start on the first day for which wages are lost and last anywhere from one day to one week with three and seven day waiting periods being very common.
Many systems allow for medical-only claims during the waiting period and most have no prohibition against the employer paying some benefits during this time. In fact, collective agreements may contain provisions that require wage continuation during a workers’ compensation waiting period. In such cases, there is no administrative or indemnity saving by introducing a waiting period. All that changes is the pocket from which the benefit is paid.
Most systems with a waiting period have a retroactive point. If the worker is off work beyond this point (ranging from one to four weeks but most commonly two weeks), the waiting period is waived and the worker receives wage-loss indemnity payments for the waiting period as part of the workers’ compensation claim. Eliminating a waiting period impacts only the cases with durations less than the waiting period.
When workers’ compensation systems started, the waiting period was seen as a way to constrain insurance costs. As may be deduced from the structure of the waiting-period deductible and the retroactive provision, the waiting period is targeted at less severe (in terms of duration) claims. Let me be clear, waiting periods limit cost to the insurer (and, through insurance rate-setting and experience-rating provisions, to the employer). The human and financial cost of the injury for the waiting period is borne by the worker and his family unless this burden is offset by collective agreement provisions or employer practice of wage continuation (or access to sick leave or other paid leave provisions) provided by the employer.
When workers’ compensation got started in BC in 1917, the waiting period was three days. In 1972, the waiting period was eliminated. This was part of a trend in Canada, however, there has been a recent trend to consider and implement waiting periods. Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia each have a “2/5ths” of a week waiting period [which works well for 4 day weeks and other non-five days a week schedules] and New Brunswick has a 3 day waiting period.
From a pure insurance point of view, the best injury claim is the one never filed. Introducing waiting periods conceptually reduce administrative costs [assuming healthcare costs are paid by someone else] and indemnity costs but they may well discourage many claims of longer duration from ever being filed. If sick leave or other leave provisions are in place, a worker may well elect to forgo a possible workers’ compensation claim with all the burden of filing and often with an implied or perceived onus of proving work-relatedness in favour of a simple sick leave application within the firm. Firms may well tacitly approve this practice as it may (or may be perceived to) positively impact workers’ compensation premium rates through experience rating.
For workplaces with no alternatives, a waiting period externalizes a cost of production [work-related injuries and illnesses] to workers. If this forces the worker or a family to access other aspects of the social safety net [social welfare services] or community food banks, then the mere existence of a waiting period externalized costs beyond the workplace. Put another way, those externalized costs amount to a subsidy (paid by workers’ families, taxpayers or the community) to businesses where injuries occur.
Yes, the firm will have to hire a replacement worker for a few days or bear the costs of lost productivity, but that is the case regardless of the legislative existence of a waiting period. Contrast a firm in a jurisdiction with a waiting period to one where work-related claims are payable from the day following the day of injury and the collective value of waiting periods is obvious.
Some may argue that the financial subsidy or externalization of costs at the aggregate level is not large. If this is the case, then reverse is also true: the cost of eliminating waiting periods where they exist will not be large either. If, however, the value of a waiting period is argued to be significant, then its cost or subsidy value should be part of the policy discussion.
Every jurisdiction has to make its own decision regarding waiting periods in workers’ compensation. That’s a matter for legislators and their electorates. There may be good and valid reasons for waiting periods that outweigh the costs or justify the subsidy in a particular jurisdiction. I am not saying the public policy choice to have or introduce a waiting period is always a bad one. I am suggesting that the policy debate include a full discussion of the externalized costs and subsidy values involved.