Workers’ Compensation: What’s payroll got to do with it?

“Payroll” used to have a simple meaning.  According to the Online Etymology Dictionary:

payroll (n.)1740, from pay (v.) + roll (n.); "total amount paid to employees over a period," hence, via records-keeping, "list of employees receiving pay." [ See https://www.etymonline.com/word/payroll ]

Today, the word “payroll” more often than not refers to the department or system that manage employer costs for a range of employee compensation components. 

For workers’ compensation, payroll can have different meanings depending on your jurisdiction and whether you are a worker or an employer.  Rules in different jurisdiction may use different terms to describe or define payroll.  Common terms include wages, salaries, benefits, fringe benefit, and remuneration or earnings—often used interchangeably—but they are all referring to the same thing:  money paid by the employer to a worker or on behalf of a worker as part of compensation for labour/work performed.  Rating bureaus, legislation or policy for each jurisdiction define which components of employer costs of employee compensation are subject to rating and included in the premium calculation.   

For employers, correctly reporting the payroll components and knowing about any caps or limits is critical to the calculation of the overall workers’ compensation premium; for workers, knowing which payroll components are covered in the calculation of temporary total disability benefits as well as limits on those benefits is essential to determining the adequacy of the coverage in the event of a work-related injury.  More on that in a future post.   For policy makers and those of us who engage in comparative analysis of workers’ compensation coverage, benefits and costs, the exact meaning of payroll in each jurisdiction is essential.

“Payroll” and the Components of Employer Costs for Employee Compensation

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) uses  “Employer Costs for Employee Compensation” to more accurately report the main components of employee compensation.  The March 2019 release [USDL-19-1002] provides the following synopsis:

Employer costs for employee compensation for civilian workers averaged $36.77 per hour worked in March 2019, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries cost employers $25.22 while benefit costs were $11.55…

Note, in this context, “civilian” workers include those employed in the private nonfarm economy (except those in private households) and workers in the public sector (except the federal government).

I’ve mapped the values from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics release to illustrate the relative size of each component of employee compensation for the average hour worked by a civilian worker.  

Note:  Canadian and Australian data are not available in the same format.  A recent study of manufacturing hourly compensation demonstrated a similar pattern for the main components (social insurance, wages or salaries, and direct benefits) paid by employers in Canada and Australia:

  

The main divisions of employer costs for employee compensation under the BLS study are wages or salaries and benefits.  Many of the benefit components are “wage-like”; these include paid leave for vacation, statutory holidays, sickness and personal reasons.  Some components are related to production needs and include overtime and shift differentials.  Many employers provide insurance coverage for life, health, short-term disability, and long-term disability.  The cost of these coverages may be shared with the employees (with worker contributions deducted from the wages or salary) but are otherwise a form of earnings, providing value that a worker might otherwise have to purchase.  Retirement plans (including defined benefit [DB in the graphic] and defined contribution [DC in the graphic] plans) are essentially deferred earnings typically based on wages, salary and other wage-like compensation.

In the graphic of the employer cost of employee compensation above, the “wages and salaries component” is shown in blue. “Benefits” are grouped into the following categories:  wage-like benefits shown in green, state or federally mandated assessments shown in yellow, and workers’ compensation shown in brown. 

This last group of benefit components are mandatory or statutory payments required of employers.  Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, and Workers’ Compensation require employers pay a percentage of “earnings” over and above any contribution required of workers (typically paid out of gross earnings and often lumped together as “payroll taxes”).   

Each jurisdiction has its own rules regarding which parts of employee compensation are to be assessed at what rate.  The workers’ compensation component of this average hourly payroll example is about $0.46 or 1.25% of total employer cost of employee compensation [$36.77]. For workers’ compensation, however, total employer cost of employee compensation does not equate to reportable or assessable payroll for workers’ compensation premium calculations.

Workers’ compensation funding:  Total Premium = Rate  x  Payroll

Workers’ compensation insurers are funded by the premiums paid by employers.  Each employer’s total premium is the sum of the premiums paid for each classification of workers covered by workers’ compensation based on a premium rate (usually expressed as a dollar cost per $100 of payroll) applied to the reportable payroll for workers in each classification.  Generally speaking, industries (or occupations) with higher rates of injury and greater severity of injury in terms of dollar costs for compensation, medical and rehabilitation expenses will attract a higher premium rate.  The underwriting process may also modify rates based on claim experience.  For the purpose of this discussion, these rating provisions are not critical.  What is critical is how “payroll” figures into the process. 

Not all components of employer costs for a worker attract a premium but most workers’ compensation system defined which components are considered “reportable” or “assessable” payroll.  How the payroll is defined can impact the rate required to result in the premium income necessary to cover expected losses (and other costs including administration and profits).   To illustrate this, consider the hypothetical average hour of work represented in the graphic above. The  $0.46 required to insure that one hour represents 1.25% of total employee compensation.   Put another way, a premium rate of $ 1.2669 per $100 applied to all the components of employee compensation would be required to generate hat same $0.46.   A larger rate would be required to generate that $0.46 if some components are omitted from the calculation.  A rate of  $1.35 per $100 applied to all wages, salary and benefits except the federal and state UI, social security and Medicare mandatory employer contributions would be required to generate that same $0.46.  The total employer cost for workers’ compensation insurance remains the same but the percentage or rate depends on the denominator used to determine that cost.

NAIC:  “Total Payroll: universally available… readily verifiable”

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) reviewed various alternatives to total payroll as the basis for premium calculation and concluded: 

Any system of adequate and reasonable rates requires that the same overall premium to be collected to pay the losses incurred and the expenses of conducting the business, regardless of the basis under which such premium is collected. Thus, the simplest and most readily verifiable basis is of the greatest advantage to all concerned. Total payroll offers the only universally available basis and is the most readily verifiable of any base which has been found.

The present approach, which requires the use of total payroll, has demonstrated to be a fair and practical method in computing worker's compensation insurance. A certain amount of premium must be developed to pay for claims and assure the continuance of necessary services to the insured. Since premium is the product of the rate and exposure base, any reduction in payroll through the use of a payroll cap ultimately results in an increase in the rate, otherwise the overall premium collected will not remain the same.

---- Source: Attributed to NAIC as quoted  by Indiana Compensation Rating Bureau, “Payroll - Limited vs Unlimited Payrolls”,  CompClues [website]  at https://compclues.icrb.net/topic/b54ce5dd-a4bb-4184-9b5e-110a20784814/ retrieved Sept 27, 2019)

  

In its annual review of Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Costs, and Coverage, the National Academy of Social Insurance (NASI.org) uses total payroll as its denominator in determining the employer cost of workers’ compensation on a state by state and national basis.  The resulting cost per $100 payroll is not a proxy for an average workers’ compensation rate but a standardized way of looking at the workers’ compensation component of employer cost across jurisdictions and timeframes. 

While “payroll” records are available and auditable, “reportable” or “assessed” payroll may vary greatly from state to state because of limitations and exceptions to what is included or excluded from the payroll calculation.  The “full payroll” approach may also engender a false sense of security about the extent of coverage; just because you pay a premium on total payroll you might assume all components of employee compensation are “covered” against losses.  This is generally not the case.  Different definitions of payroll and restrictions on maximum temporary and permanent benefits effectively leave much of worker’s wages uninsured.  More on that in a future post. 

What’s Reportable as Payroll for Workers’ Compensation?

Most US jurisdictions define “reportable” payroll as including the following:

• Wages and Salaries
• Vacation and Holiday Pay
• Bonuses and Commissions
• Payment by employer into statutory insurance and/or pension plans [Social Security, UI, Medicare]
• Sick pay - Paid Leave provided by the employer
• Employee contributions to a 401k [retirement savings],  
• Deferred compensation plan
• The value of lodging or rental of an apartment or house provided to an employee
• Meals provided by the employer (at no cost to the worker)
• Stand-by, On-call, Travel or “Show Up” pay
• Payments for hand tools provided by the employee, either directly or through a third party

Other items may be included or excluded from reportable payroll depending on the state. For example, in most states, overtime premiums (e.g., “time and a half “ or “double time” paid for overtime hours worked) are not reportable and only the straight-time portion is included in the reported payroll for workers’ compensation purposes.  Nevada and Pennsylvania do not exclude overtime pay.  Most Canadian jurisdictions include the full value of overtime (e.g.,  if overtime is paid at twice the hourly rate than the full value of the wages for the straight time  and  payment for the overtime including other amounts associated with any overtime) are included in the assessable payroll calculations.  Most states exclude tips and gratuities but New Jersey includes them for most classifications.   [see NCCI,   Basic Manual (2001 Edition) “Rule 2  Premium Basis and Payroll Allocation” for a more complete listing of payroll inclusions, exceptions and limitations commonly used in the US.  Many jurisdictions publish a version of the rule either in the NCCI wording or with minor modifications.  See, for example, The Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Insurers Association, Inc. (MWCIA.org) Basic Manual  or North Carolina Rating Bureau (NCRB.org) “Rule 2- Premium and Payroll”  ].          

Some states limit payroll subject to reporting and assessment for premium calculations.  Notably, Nevada has a $36,000 maximum or cap  [see https://www.wcf.com/about-your-policy-nevada ].  The payroll for each employee is capped at $36,000 annually for the purposes of calculating  workers’ compensation premiums; no workers’ compensation premium is collected for reported payroll above this amount. 

Several other states have maximums for specific occupations.  The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation [BWC] in Ohio also has construction class codes where payroll limitations apply.  Construction industry payroll reporting limits to weekly maximum of $1425; earnings that would otherwise be part of total reportable payroll that exceeds that limit for any individual are excluded from the calculation.  New York  similarly restricts payroll for inclusion in the workers’ compensation premium calculation for dozens of construction classification codes [see http://x.nycirb.org/library/index.cfm?man=wcelmanual&chapter=PART%20I&sub=RULE%20V#collapse195   part G]. 

Although corporate officers, directors, partners and sole proprietors make up a small percentage of workers that may be covered by workers’ compensation, their remuneration is often a significant segment of a firm’s overall payroll.  Many states allow workers’ compensation coverage for these categories of workers but often provide both minimum and maximum dollar values or flat amounts to be included in total payroll for workers’ compensation premium calculations.  In Massachusetts, for example, corporate officers are assessed at a minimum of $11,400 and a maximum of $57,200 while partners are assessed at a flat rate of $50,400 [as at Oct 2018].  Maryland has a corporate officer minimum at $57,200 and a maximum value set at $228,200 with partners as a flat rate of $56,900 [as at Jan 2019]. 

Variations and Alternatives

Not all states use payroll as the basis for calculation of premium.  Most notably, Washington state uses “hours of exposure” – a risk-based metric—as the main basis for the premium calculation.  This works well in a state where workers pay between 20 and 25% of the cost of workers’ compensation through worker-paid premiums.  On the other hand, the premium rates charged workers and employers are not easily compared across jurisdictions and  “worker hours” are far less transparent and auditable than actual dollars paid. 

Washington state uses another alternative to payroll and worker hours for the purposes of its rate calculations in at least one construction-related risk.  Wallboard or drywall installation is assessed “by square footage”.  This is an auditable, objective alternative as a basis for rate calculation. 

Outside the US, the general term “payroll” is often expanded to “assessable payroll”.  This term recognizes that there are limitations and caps.  Assessable payroll will be less than total payroll; as a consequence, jurisdictions with payroll limitations or caps will likely have higher workers’ compensation premium rates than jurisdictions without payroll limitations or caps.  This is particularly important when comparing or ranking workers’ compensation premium rates.

Canadian workers’ compensation boards typically use “assessable payroll” terminology and include both wages and employer-paid benefits (sick leave, bonuses, profit sharing, employer contributions to pensions, accommodations, gratuities, etc.) but notably exclude employer contributions to Canada’s social insurance plans (Canada Pension Plan, Quebec Pension Plan, Employment Insurance).   Each jurisdiction publishes its own rules on what constitutes assessable payroll [See, for example, WorkSafeBC’s Assessment Manual, WSIB’s Operational Policy Manual].   Most align their definitions of earnings to be in line with taxation definitions of earnings reported Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) requirements for reporting earnings [ See Form T4 – Statement of Remuneration issued annually to workers and filed electronically with governments reporting earnings and certain other income and deductions made from earnings].

The reported payroll is typically limited by a per employee maximum assessable earnings amount.  This is typically the maximum insurable earnings. The Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada (AWCBC.org) provides the following:

        Maximum Assessable / Insurable Earnings

Province/Territory                                               2019

Manitoba                                                            $127,000

Alberta                                                                 $98,700

Ontario                                                                 $92,600

Northwest Territories and Nunavut                     $92,400

Yukon                                                                  $89,145

Saskatchewan                                                      $88,314

British Columbia                                                 $84,800

Québec                                                                $76,500

Newfoundland and Labrador                              $65,600

New Brunswick                                                   $64,800

Nova Scotia                                                         $60,900

Prince Edward Island                                          $55,000

Note:  Manitoba has no maximum insurable but caps assessable payroll at $127,000 except for Personal Coverage available for purchase by sole proprietors, partners or directors where the Maximum Optional Coverage is $502,200 (for 2019). 

Note:  Alberta WCB adopted “compensable earnings” as opposed to “insurable earnings” in 2018 because as of September that year, worker compensable benefits are no longer capped by the individual payroll assessment limit. 

Australian jurisdictions typically define payroll to include most of the same items US and Canadian jurisdictions include.  Queensland’s WorkCover Employers Wages Definition Manual [see https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/3040/Wages-definition-manual.pdf] notes the following inclusions and exclusions for assessment purposes:

Inclusions
(a) Total of all PAYG [pay as you go] gross salary and wage payments
(b) All superannuation payments including super salary sacrifice
(c) Fringe benefits and other entitlements having a monetary value
(d) Total of all individual contractor payments for deemed workers
Exclusions
 (f) Any allowances or expenses reimbursed for work related expense included in (a)
(g) Lump sum termination payments included in gross wages (a)
(h) Excess period payments (i) Compensation payments reimbursed by WorkCover
(j) All payments made to, or in respect of, Directors / Trustees / Partners

Additional payroll-based assessments

Three US states have features related to the funding of their workers’ compensation systems that involve additional consideration. 

In addition to the premium charged employers in New Mexico, workers and employers are also assessed on a per capita per quarter.  Employers pay $2.30 per capita and workers employed at the end of a quarter have a $2.00 charge.  The employer portion is an employer cost of employee compensation.  The worker portion is a deduction from earnings. 

Oregon requires employers and workers contribute to the Worker Benefit Fund on an hour worked basis.  In 2019, this assessment is 2.4 cents per hour worked with employers and employees each paying 1.7 cents per hour worked. The employer cost of this payroll amount is a component of workers’ compensation cost; the worker contribution is a deduction from earnings. 

Washington state’s premium is based on hours of exposure and worker in that state pay a proportion of the premium.  This would be considered a deduction from earnings rather than an employer cost component. 

The premium charged may or may not include funding for uninsured employers, oversight, or other functions like occupational safety and health.  States apply separate assessments based either on premium totals or payroll.   California, for example, assesses premiums by applying the following factors for 2019:

Workers’ Compensation Administration Revolving Fund Assessment (WCARF)      0.014479
Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund Assessment (UEBTF)                                   0.000831
Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund Assessment (SIBTF)                                        0.002737
Occupational Safety and Health Fund Assessment (OSHF)                                              0.003765
Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund Assessment (LECF)                                      0.003431
Workers’ Compensation Fraud Account Assessment (FRAUD)                                       0.002878

For self-insured employers, a different set of factors are applied to indemnity payments. Whether the base is premium or indemnity, the underlying payroll definition with possible limitations and caps are inherently reflected in the calculation. In comparing rates between jurisdictions, it is essential to determine the impact of these factors. 

Concluding comments

How payroll is defined and the limitations, caps, and exclusions imposed on payroll can vary widely between jurisdictions.  As an employer, if your reported payroll for workers’ compensation includes income above a cap or limit, you will be paying too much in total premium and other assessments that rely directly or indirectly on premium.

For policy analysts,  It is insufficient to compare a workers’ compensation premium rate without considering the payroll base and associated caps or limits to which the premium rate is applied.  That reported or assessable base may differ significantly across any set of jurisdictions under comparison. 

Despite the arguments for the use of full payroll as the basis for premium calculation, the practice may give employers and workers a false sense of security.  Many systems limit the workers’ compensation indemnity payable, effectively limiting the portion of worker earnings that are actually insured.   This dichotomy between payroll that is assessed and what is actually insured is not well understood.  Even in Canada where there is an explicit statement in most provinces regarding insurable earnings, many workers will have earnings above limits for benefits leaving a potentially large portion of earnings uninsured.  It is not just that the compensation rate limits the percentage of earnings covered by workers’ compensation temporary or permanent benefits; caps on weekly benefits payable effectively limit insured payroll.  Such limits, of course, control costs but may leave many workers shocked when they have to access workers’ compensation only to learn they are under insured relative to their expectations.  More on that in a future post.   

Part 2 Do the words we use to describe WC claims matter?

The basic terms we use in workers’ compensation have meanings, associations and connotations whether we like them or not. I received a lot of questions and comments on my last post about terms such as “old dog” and “long tail” claims and I want to explore the idea that the other basic terms we use in workers’ compensation can influence how we and other stakeholders think and potentially act.



If you ask someone about the purpose of workers’ compensation, you generally get a response about compensation for accidents and a few will add something about prevention. “Accident” is often defined or understood to mean a “fortuitous event” and has the connotation of randomness and inevitability. An analysis of work-related injuries shows that the vast majority of work-related events that result in injury are preventable. Calling the specifics of a work-related injury event an “accident” may subtly shift thinking away from causation and prevention and towards inevitability and “bad luck”.


A few years ago, WorkSafeBC shifted its terminology with respect to work-related injuries involving motor vehicles from Motor Vehicle Accidents (MVAs) to Motor Vehicle Incidents (MVIs). Unless referring to a specific term in legislation (such as the Accident Fund), WorkSafeBC actively avoids using the term accident in its annual report and services plan as well as other publications.


The word “claim” as a noun has several possible meanings, the most common of which has a connotative meaning of a statement that is not yet substantiated, doubted or contested. By extension, the connotation of the word “claimant” can be similar to that of supplicant—a connotation that sets up a power relationship that can be problematic. Even the synonyms of Plaintiff and Complainant set up an adversarial relationship. Although terms like claimant may be necessary in some very specific contexts, I use “injured worker” in place of claimant wherever possible. Workers’ compensation systems are there for injured workers. “Worker” generally has a positive connotation, a sense of dignity and attachment to an occupation and employer. “Injured” speaks to the the consequences of a work-related event rather than the bureaucratic process of filing a “claim” for workers’ compensation. This may not be a perfect alternative, but in my view, it is preferable. (As an aside, in the British Columbia, the word “claimant” only occurs in Schedule B to the Workers Compensation Act and only in the context of certain occupational cancers and hand-arm vibration).


Finally, the term “benefit” connotes something different from “compensation” in common parlance. “Benefit” is often thought of as an advantage or profit gained from something; it is hard to think of an injured worker profiting or gaining from a work-related injury particularly a serious one. Do we really need to tack on the word “benefit” to workers’ compensation?


My advice is use words that keep the focus on the needs of person and his or her family. Just think about the way the words sound and how they make you feel in the sentences below:


a) The injured worker requested assistance in obtaining a wheel chair to aid in recovery

b) The claimant made a claim for medical aid benefits to cover the cost of a wheel chair.


Both sentences convey similar meeting but the first is focused on the worker and the worker’s needs while the second is focussed on a claim for a benefit with a tone, to my ear, that questions entitlement and focuses on costs.


Not every situation will allow you to avoid the terms mentioned in this series. Even if you cannot avoid the terms, thinking about the words we use may help improve understanding of how words influence perceptions and actions in workers’ compensation

Do the words we use to describe WC claims matter?

Workers’ compensation is an extremely complex form of social insurance. Those who specialize in workers’ compensation tend to adopt jargon as a kind of shorthand to express concepts to those in the know. I’m sure you have heard (maybe even said), “I have this back claim…” when what is really meant is, “I am assisting a person with a work-related injury to the back…”. Unfortunately, this use of jargon can have unintended and negative consequences.


Recently, I have read blog posts and heard speakers at conferences referring to “old dog” claims. I have heard many explanations for the source of this idiom. One commentator said the term arose from the dog-eared corners of the large paper files that are the inevitable consequence of serious injuries and long-term claims management. Another suggested the term related to those serious and long-term claims that “hound” adjudicators and frustrate administrators due to their lack of resolution. Regardless its origin, those unfamiliar with the term may interpret “old dog” claims as somehow disparaging the people who made them. Worse yet, the internal use of a term with such a negative connotation may influence the way we think about or act on some claims.
A related term, “long-tail” claims can create barriers between workers’ compensation insurers and those the system intends to help. The “long tail” in workers’ compensation refers to the statistical property of the distribution of claims, particularly as it relates to duration. The vast majority of claims are very short duration but a few go on much longer and a very few go on with some benefits that may last a lifetime. It is impossible to know just how long a particular claim for a particular injury might require active claims management, adjudication of medical costs, and payment of benefits. Insurers use actuarial estimates based on experience to quantify the costs. Claims at the far end of the claim duration distribution—the “long tail” of a graphical depiction—will generally have the greatest costs.

Most of us are not actuaries or statisticians. Those of us who endured rather than enjoyed the statistics courses in our academic careers can probably still recognize the statistical aspect of the “long tail” and recall vaguely the problems of asymtopical distributions, skewing, and corrections for right-hand truncation. For those without statistical knowledge, the term “long tail” has a somewhat negative connotation, an implied variance from some level of “normal” or “typical”. To those individuals, the use of the term may create a barrier or put them on the defensive with the insurer, adjudicator, case manager or other workers’ compensation personnel. It is not hard to imagine people worrying that adjudicators in WC would be actively working to terminate claims in the interests of shortening that long tail—not a recipe for a trusting relationship.
A 2010 survey had good news and bad news for insurers regarding trust. The headline read “Trust in Canadian insurance industry jumps 17%”. The article revealed this significant increase was on a base of only 38%. At 51% of opinion leaders trusting insurers, this improved standing is still well down the in the ranking behind other sectors like health care and technology. Given this significant lack of trust in insurers, it is time we stopped using terms that have such negative connotations even in internal discussions.
I believe workers’ compensation professionals in state funds, private carriers, TPAs and related agencies are sincerely working in the best interests of those WC was created to serve. Abandoning jargon and shorthand terms like “old dog” and “long tail” claims may seem like a small thing but words matter. Words create perceptions and perceptions create reality.

What was new at the Saskatchewan Workers’ Comp Institute?

A few weeks ago, I attended a unique event in Regina. Since 1998, Saskatchewan WCB and the Ministry responsible for workplace inspections have been holding an annual Workers’ Comp Institute. The event is open to employers, union reps, safety officers, and human resource professionals - in fact, anyone with an interest workers’ compensation. Over the course of the two-day event, nearly 400 participants learned more about the Saskatchewan workers' compensation system and stakeholder responsibilities in it. Many of the concurrent sessions had basic titles like “Case Management”, “Employer Services (Assessments)”, and “Best Practices (Prevention and RTW)” but the content was of interest to novices to workers’ compensation and to students of workers’ compensation systems like me.

A highlight was the celebration of the “Safe Worker” and “Safe Employer” awards. The luncheon celebrating the nominees attracted media attention and was a fabulous platform for advancing the idea of changing safety culture. In introducing the Safe Employer award nominees, the Deputy Minister spoke about the importance of leadership noting that research shows about 70% of corporate culture is set from the top. Three nominees for employer and worker awards were highlighted in video presentations that showed how individuals and firms can make a difference in making workplaces safe and healthy.

Another highlight was the frank discussion about a new and controversial initiative: summary offense ticketing. The Ministry is seeking an amendment to the Summary Offence Regulations of the province. These regulations allow peace officers in different fields to issue tickets (like traffic tickets for speeding). The amendment would allow occupational safety officers to issue on-the-spot-tickets to employers, supervisors, contractors, owners, and workers for certain prescribed offences. The benefit of this program is the immediacy of issuing a ticket. If you are trying to change behaviour, a summary offense ticket is an immediate tool with far lower administrative costs than prosecutions or many administrative penalty processes. Still to be worked out would be the schedule of offences and the values of associated fines (large enough to be a deterrent without being overly punitive). Consultations are continuing to decide which behaviours should be targeted.

The event was well run and included a range of representatives from all stakeholder groups. In the plenary and concurrent sessions I attended, there was no grandstanding; yet, questions from all stakeholders were welcomed and respectfully addressed.

I’m not certain the Workers’ Comp Institute idea is right for every jurisdiction but it seems to be working well in Saskatchewan. Other jurisdictions may find inspiration from the the approach and the content of this very successful event.