The 22nd report in the series, Workers’ Compensation: Benefits, Costs, and Coverage (2017 Data) provides the only comprehensive data on workers’ compensation benefits, coverage, and employer costs for the nation, the states, the District of Columbia, and federal programs.
This report featured state-specific findings for the following states:
Florida: Legal Changes Have Sharply Reduced Worker Benefits, Benefited Insurers
In 2003, Florida passed sweeping changes to workers’ compensation laws. These changes led to both reductions in employee benefits and improved conditions for insurance carriers, trends that largely continue through 2013-2017, the period studied for this year’s report on Workers’ Compensation Benefits, Costs, and Coverage.
Missouri: Bucking the Trend with Increases in Worker Benefits and Costs for Employers
Between 2013 and 2017, workers in Missouri saw substantial increases in both medical benefits per $100 of covered wages (of 11.8%) and in cash benefits/$100 of covered wages (of 9.6%). The latter represents the largest increase of any state. Overall, benefits for Missouri workers rose by 10.8%. Employer costs for workers’ compensation also increased in Missouri, albeit more modestly, by 5.6%, or $0.07 per $100 of covered wages, over the 5-year period.
Over the past ten years, Ohio has experienced a larger decrease in Workers’ Compensation benefits per $100 of payroll than all but one other state. The state saw worker benefits reduced from $1.20 per $100 in 2007 to $0.68 per $100 in 2017, or by nearly half (43%), a larger relative decline than that of any other state but Michigan ($0.85 – $0.42, or 51%). Two complementary sets of forces – legislative changes that limit access to and levels of benefits, and incentives for employers to improve worker safety – likely explain much of this decline.
Wyoming: Non-mandatory Coverage Reduces Benefits for Workers
The majority of workers in Wyoming are covered by workers’ compensation because their occupations are classified as “extra-hazardous.” Employees who do not work in such jobs, however, are not required to be covered. In recent years, several large private employers, have carved out exceptions that keep their employees outside the system.