Experience modification rating for workers' compensation insurance

Everett, J G and Thompson, W S (1995) Experience modification rating for workers' compensation insurance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121(1), pp. 66-79. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Most employers regard workers' compensation insurance (WCI) as an outrageously expensive, but necessary cost of doing business. One of the objectives of WCI, to provide incentives for employers to improve safety performance, has been lost in the complex method used to calculate WCI premiums. Few employers and few insurance agents understand the process. This paper explains how WCI Standard Premiums are calculated using manual rates, payroll, and an experience modification rating. Manual rates help predict loss rates for different work classifications, payroll gives an indication of risk exposure, and an experience modification rating compares an individual employer's actual loss experience to its expected record. This paper shows that employers with WCI are really self-insuring for most losses and ultimately pay for their own injuries. The paper shows how several small losses cost far more than one severe loss, how employers who try to save money by reporting incorrect work classifications may end up paying more, and why using the experience modification rating to compare the safety performance of different employers is not valid. Employers who understand how their WCI premiums are calculated will have far more incentive to improve safety, and will be better prepared to negotiate savings when purchasing WCI.

Item Type: Article
Index terms: insurance, compensation, injury, safety performance, exposure, purchasing, agent, savings
Subjects: dispute resolution, occupational health and safety management, procurement strategy, public and environmental health, health conditions and diseases, practitioner, economic analysis
Topics: Health and Safety, Legal Issues, Business Strategy, Procurement, Roles and Professions
Descriptive scope: 2 PC

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here