Fewer workers' compensation claims and lower claim costs if employers with high injury rates achieved the rates of their safer peers.

INTRODUCTION: Employers engaged in similar business activities demonstrate a range of workers' compensation claim rates. Workplace injuries and illnesses could be prevented if employers with high claim rates achieved the claim rates of their safer peers. METHODS: We used Washington workers' compensation claims data for years 2013-2015 to calculate rates of compensable claims (eligible for disability or time loss benefits, if unable to work four days after injury) and total accepted claims (compensable plus medical-aid only claims) for each employer. We estimated the number and cost of claims to occur if employers with high claim rates reduced them to the rates of employers at the 25th percentile, adjusted for insurance risk class, employer size, and injury type. To evaluate the impact of setting more or less ambitious goals, we also estimated reductions based on claim rates at the 10th and 50th percentiles. RESULTS: Over 43% of claims and claim costs would be prevented if employers with higher claim rates lowered them to the 25th percentile using either total accepted or compensable claim rates as the benchmark outcome. The estimated claim cost savings from benchmarking to compensable claims was nearly as great as the estimate based on benchmarking to total accepted claims ($308.5 mil annually based on compensable claims vs. $332.4 mil based on total accepted claims). Restaurants and Taverns had the greatest number of potentially prevented compensable claims. Colleges and Universities and Wood Frame and Building Construction had the greatest potential reduction in compensable claim costs among larger and smaller employers, respectively. CONCLUSION: Substantial reductions in workers' compensation claims and costs are possible if employers achieve the injury rates experienced by their safer peers. Practical application: Evaluating the range of workplace injury rates among employers within industry groups identifies opportunities for injury prevention and offers another approach to resource allocation.

Injury Rate Comparisons for Nonmechanized and Mechanized Logging Operations, Washington State, 2005-2014.

OBJECTIVES: Current industry classification systems in the United States do not differentiate mechanized and nonmechanized logging operations. The objectives of this article are to quantify injury risk differences between mechanized and nonmechanized logging operations in Washington State and to evaluate for potential injury risk tradeoffs, such as decreasing traumatic injuries while increasing nontraumatic injuries that might occur when mechanized logging operations are substituted for nonmechanized logging operations. METHODS: Using Washington State workers' compensation insurance risk classes to differentiate mechanized and nonmechanized logging operations, injury and illness claims data and employer reported hours were used to compare claim rates and to characterize injuries by type of logging operation. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2014, the accepted Washington State worker's compensation claim rate for nonmechanized logging was 46.4 per 100 full-time equivalent employees compared to 6.7 per 100 full-time equivalent (FTE) for mechanized logging activities. The rate ratio for comparing nonmechanized to mechanized logging claims rates for all accepted claims was 6.9 (95% Confidence Interval 6.4-7.5). Claim rates for traumatic injury and nontraumatic injuries in nonmechanized logging exceeded comparable rates in mechanized logging activities, although the distribution of types of injury differed by type of logging operation. A greater percentage of accepted claims in nonmechanized logging were traumatic injuries than in mechanized logging (92.2% vs. 85.0%, respectively). In addition, nonmechanized logging had higher total claim and medical costs per FTE and had a higher proportion of claims with lost work time than mechanized logging. CONCLUSION: Mechanized logging offers a considerable safety advantage over nonmechanized logging operations. Continued efforts to increase the mechanization of logging operations will result in decreased injury rates.

Workers' compensation claims not reported in the Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Injury and claim characteristics.

BACKGROUND: Underreporting in the nation's primary source of non-fatal occupational injury and illness data are well documented, but worker-level characteristics of unreported cases have not been fully explored. METHODS: Bureau of Labor Statistics' Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) data were linked to Washington workers' compensation claims to identify injury and claim characteristics associated with unreported cases. Workers' compensation administrative date data were used to characterize timing of disability and SOII case eligibility. RESULTS: Based on claim date data, one in five lost time claims with an injury date in the survey year were likely ineligible for SOII case reporting during the survey year. Among SOII-eligible claims, those involving sprains or strains, employer protests, and those not eligible for work disability payments until months after the initial injury were least likely to be reported in SOII. CONCLUSIONS: SOII case capture is limited both by its cross sectional survey design and employer underreporting. Am. J. Ind. Med. 60:264-275, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Employer reasons for failing to report eligible workers' compensation claims in the BLS survey of occupational injuries and illnesses.

BACKGROUND: Little research has been done to identify reasons employers fail to report some injuries and illnesses in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII). METHODS: We interviewed the 2012 Washington SOII respondents from establishments that had failed to report one or more eligible workers' compensation claims in the SOII about their reasons for not reporting specific claims. Qualitative content analysis methods were used to identify themes and patterns in the responses. RESULTS: Non-compliance with OSHA recordkeeping or SOII reporting instructions and data entry errors led to unreported claims. Some employers refused to include claims because they did not consider the injury to be work-related, despite workers' compensation eligibility. Participant responses brought the SOII eligibility of some claims into question. CONCLUSION: Systematic and non-systematic errors lead to SOII underreporting. Insufficient recordkeeping systems and limited knowledge of reporting requirements are barriers to accurate workplace injury records.

Unreported workers' compensation claims to the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses: Establishment factors.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest employers underreport injuries to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII); less is known about reporting differences by establishment characteristics. METHODS: We linked SOII data to Washington State workers' compensation claims data, using unemployment insurance data to improve linking accuracy. We used multivariable regression models to estimate incidence ratios (IR) of unreported workers' compensation claims for establishment characteristics. RESULTS: An estimated 70% of workers' compensation claims were reported in SOII. Claims among state and local government establishments were most likely to be reported. Compared to large manufacturing establishments, unreported claims were most common among small educational services establishments (IR = 2.47, 95%CI: 1.52-4.01) and large construction establishments (IR = 2.05, 95%CI: 1.77-2.37). CONCLUSIONS: Underreporting of workers' compensation claims to SOII varies by establishment characteristics, obscuring true differences in work injury incidence. Findings may differ from previous research due to differences in study methods.

Exploring the relationship between employer recordkeeping and underreporting in the BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses.

BACKGROUND: Little empirical data exist to identify the reasons for underreporting in the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) non-fatal occupational injury and illness data. METHODS: We interviewed occupational injury and illness record keepers from Washington State establishments that participated in the 2008 BLS Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII). Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to explore recordkeeping and business practices that may explain SOII's incomplete case capture compared with WC claims data. RESULTS: Most participants (90%) did not comply with OSHA recordkeeping regulations. Other factors including using workplace injury data to evaluate supervisors' or SOII respondent's job performance, recording injuries for a worksite that operates multiple shifts, and failing to follow SOII instructions were more common among establishments with unreported WC claims. CONCLUSION: Business practices that incentivize low injury rates, disorganized recordkeeping, and limited communication between BLS and survey respondents are barriers to accurate employer reports of work-related injuries and illnesses.

Injury classification agreement in linked Bureau of Labor Statistics and Workers' Compensation data.

BACKGROUND: Estimates of select occupational injuries and illnesses often differ across data sources. We explored agreement in injury classifications and the impact of differences on case estimates among records reported to multiple data sources. METHODS: We linked cases reported in the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) annual Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses (SOII) to Washington State workers' compensation (WC) claims and evaluated agreement in injury characteristics coded in each data source according to the same occupational injury and illness classification system. RESULTS: Agreement between data sources was greatest for body part and lowest for event or exposure. Agreement on nature of injury varied by condition. WC-assigned injury codes estimated 94% more amputations than SOII-assigned codes while SOII-assigned codes estimated 34% more work-related MSD cases. CONCLUSIONS: Accounting for classification differences may improve case ascertainment within individual data sources and help align injury and illness estimates derived from different data sources.