Workers' Compensation and Social Security Disability Insurance

I spent part of last week in Washington, DC at a seminar sponsored by the National Academy of Social Insurance and the U.S. Social Security Agency. The seminar focused on the fact that many of the clients served by both workers’ compensation (WC) and social security (SS).

My role in the conference was to provide a Canadian perspective and some insights into how Canadian public policy makers are dealing with the overlap between workers’ compensation and social security. More importantly, my hosts were interested in the innovations Canadians are bringing to the return-to-work priority both systems share for the clients who may be able to overcome the barriers to gainful re-employment in the labour force.

The research is pretty clear: early intervention improves return to work outcomes. Typically, access to services to assist in an early return to work (RTW) is more associated with workers’ compensation than Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Canada Pension Plan-Disability (CPP-D). Consequently, public policy that increases the scope of coverage for WC tends to increase access to programs and services of this population that would not otherwise have such access. Since many of those who are outside the scope of WC coverage (for example, some jurisdictions exclude, domestic workers, out-workers, farm labourers and self-employed from coverage) are workers who may have limited access to alternative employment, any expansion of WC coverage that includes these populations has the potential to help some of the most vulnerable workers return to work.

In my presentation, I noted that some jurisdictions have mandatory reinstatement provisions in their WC legislation. These provisions require an employer to take an injured worker back to employment. Some jurisdictions go further and require the employer to accommodate the worker to the point of “undue hardship”—a significantly higher test than mere ‘reasonable accommodation’. The big stick of legislation is not unique to some Canadian jurisdictions. Many Australian jurisdictions, for example, require employers to return injured workers to employment.

Since WorkSafeBC’s legislation contains no direct mandatory reinstatement provision, other approaches are emphasized. For example, WorkSafeBC offers a rebate of premiums to employers who qualify for a Certificate of Recognition. After substantiating through an audit that a firm has a prevention program in place that exceeds the regulatory minimum and has an injury management/Return to Work program in place, the firm may qualify for a 15% rebate. This can provide a substantial carrot to get and keep the attention focused on primary prevention and disability management that may help all workers—not just those who may suffer a work-related injury.

In the question and answer session, I was asked how WorkSafeBC is financed and how this compares with the typical US workers’ compensation insurer. I noted that WorkSafeBC is the exclusive insurer of work-related injury, the sole adjudicative authority, policy maker, workplace health and safety regulator and inspectorate for the province (like OSHA in the US). WorkSafeBC is funded by premiums that average about $1.56 per $100 of assessable payroll and that premium covers all WorkSafeBC’s functions (in the U.S., the quoted base or book rate may not reflect assessments or levies that finance research, oversight, appeals, and state-OSHA costs).

In follow-up questions, I was asked what I meant by assessable payroll. In many places, workers’ compensation rates apply to total payroll as opposed to the limit WorkSafeBC and most other Canadian WC boards place on payroll per person (currently $68,500). If we stated WorkSafeBC’s premium in terms of total payroll, we estimate the rate would come in at about $1.33 per $100 of payroll.

It was clear from the interest expressed in questions both during and following the session that many of the researchers in the audience were intrigued with the apparent low cost, relatively high benefits and strong return-to-work outcomes achieved in British Columbia for our workers and employers. If you are interested in seeing the presentations from this event, you will find them posted on the past events section of the NASI.org site...look for the November 18, 2009 seminar listing.

What does Workers’ Compensation owe Francois Bareme?

Every workers’ compensation system has some way of deciding what payment a worker should receive for permanent disability. Some systems are based on impairment or non-economic loss while others are based on disability with its implied economic loss calculated in some manner or other. Still others are based on a combination of the two concepts. Commonly in workers’ compensation, schedules of disability exist that relate impairment or disability to some standard. In Canada, we might refer to these as Disability Schedules. In several European sources, I noted that these schedules were called “Baremas” . I wondered about the origin of the word and was fascinated by what I found.

In medieval times, Germanic law related the loss of an arm or an eye to the ‘wergeld’ or ‘manngeld’, the compensation that was to be paid to the family for the killing of a free man. Even pirates had schedules in the articles that governed their enlistment. In Under the Black Flag: Exploits of the most notorious pirates, Don Carlos Seitz lists the articles from a 1723 voyage under Captin John Phillips; one article reads:

If any Man shall lose a Joint in time of Engagement, shall have 400 Pieces of
Eight; if a Limb, 800.

Enter the French mathematician, Francois Bareme [or Barreme] (1638?-1703). He created and published many mathematical tables for ease of use and consistency in commerce. The French word for a ready-reckoner, barême or barrême, is a reference to him. Bareme took the sums that were commonly used for the loss of body parts and restated them as a percentage of the compensation that would be granted for compensation for the death of a free man. Subsequently, such listings of body parts and percentages in many personal injury compensation schemes became known as Baremas. Today, the most complex Barema would be the AMA Guides. In Spain, the Baremo, as it is known, is a mechanism that allows users to consistently evaluate bodily injury and assess compensation for victims of motor vehicle incidents (for permanent disability systems, it uses a point system to calculate a rating from 0 to 100 that determines the compensation).

The scale and method of calculating compensation varies with the barema used and the jurisdiction. I recently wanted to know how various systems might rate the loss of an eye. Since some jurisdictions are not limited to just workers’ compensation, these may not be strictly comparable but I thought the variation was interesting. In WorkSafeBC’s Permanent Disability Evaluation Schedule, and industrially blind eye is evaluated as a 16% disability, enuculeation at 18%. In Belgium, total loss of vision in one eye is rated at 30% disability. The English Barema uses 40% while the French use 25% and in Iceland, the loss of vision in one eye is rated at 20%. There is even a wide variation in Scandinavia with the loss of vision of one eye rated at 20% in Denmark and Norway and 14% in Sweden while the actual loss of one eye is rated at 20% disability in Denmark but 25% and 17% in Norway and Sweden respectively.

Of course, the final result for the injured worker will be based on more than a percentage of disability. A low percentage of a high wage rate may provide a greater benefit than in a system where the maximum wage rate is pegged at a low level.

There is no one right percentage of disability to apply in this example. What is right for one jurisdiction is not necessarily right for another. The impact of the loss of an eye in one society (and its related economy) may be quite different than in another. That said, the equity is critical. Bareme’s intent in creating tables was to standardize and eliminate error—a goal that still applies today.