Which states have highest workers’ comp rates?
November 12, 2008 by Fred HosierPosted in: In this week's e-newsletter, Latest News & Views, Workers' comp
PDF A new report shows workers’ comp reform laws in two states have brought down premiums significantly.
Florida and California are enjoying much lower rates.
California’s rate of $2.72 per $100 of payroll places it 14th among the 50 states and District of Columbia. It was second highest in 2006 before passing reform legislation.
Florida’s rate is $2.20, and its rank is 28th. It ranked sixth two years ago.
Alaska has the highest rate at $3.97, followed by Montana, Ohio, Vermont and New Hampshire.
North Dakota has the lowest rate, $1.08, followed by Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia and Arkansas.
The median rate in the survey was $2.26.
The study was conducted by the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services. You can find how your state stacked up by clicking here.
SafetyNewsAlert.com delivers the latest Safety news once a week to the inboxes of over 270,000 Safety professionals.
Click here to sign up and start your FREE subscription to SafetyNewsAlert!
Tags: California, Florida, Workers' comp
Loading ...
November 17th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Being from Ohio, I wonder how investing in “rare coins” has managed to keep the rates high.
Industry has been leaving Ohio and I find it hard to believe that with all the attention on drug free workplaces and safety councils, that an employee in Ohio is more likely to result in injury that will be costly to an employer.
Of course, there is no indication of fraud rates. It may be that without universal healthcare, employees are using the BWC system to take care of the “aches and pains” of growing older.
November 18th, 2008 at 8:23 am
How do you find out how your state ranks?
November 18th, 2008 at 9:47 am
At the bottom of the article, click on the highlighted word “here.”
November 18th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Is there any reference as to where healthcare ranks with all other fields?
November 18th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
To Mike R.
Going by the insurance premium rates alone is not a fair measurement. Insurance rates also are tied to a benefit received.
Indiana, when compared to Ohio, costs about one third for the coverage. However, the injured worker in Indiana will receive considerably less than his Buckeye counterpart for lost wages.
So if we are going to compare rates, lets try to keep things in perspective. What kind of burger do you get from the McDonald’s dollar menu versus one from a Max & Erma’s restaurant? Its pretty much the same with insurance.
November 19th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
To Joseph Hammond:
I don’t know know what the disparity for lost wages is between Ohio and Indiana, but I find it hard to believe it could be that much. Does Indiana not cover lost wages? I was injured on the job in 1993 and at the time was making about $7.00/hour. I only received lost wages while I recovered from surgery which was about $300.00. The only other reason I could think of a large disparity is if Buckeyes get paid more than Hoosiers. I really don’t think that is the case based on the economy in Ohio for the last 8 years.
From what I have seen over the last 15 years in Ohio is that the system was based mainly on insurance rates. If penalty rated (based on a few claims in a year) you would not be grouped for reasonable rates. The reserves that were created by the BWC were outrageous and the total payouts never even approached 10% of the reserves.
Ohio created a system to reduce rates that involve “safety training” and “drug free workplace” programs. I suspect that the money is going into this huge bureaucracy and its investment strategies.