How competition can help lower worker’s comp costs and improve outcomes
-
Most states allow for private coverage or a hybrid system of worker’s compensation coverage.
-
State-controlled worker’s comp monopolies result in higher costs, longer waiting times and poor customer service.
-
While Idaho worker’s comp rates are declining, monopoly states are seeing a dramatic increase.
-
Policymakers should look to the results of worker’s comp reform in West Virginia and Nevada.
-
More competition can help lower costs and get workers back on the job sooner.
​
BY CHRIS CARGILL
INTRODUCTION
​
Workers' compensation is defined by the United States Centers for Disease Control as, “systems [that] were established to provide partial medical care and income protection to employees who are injured or become ill from their job.”
Workers’ compensation was established to incentivize employers to reduce injury and illness to their employees. While the federal government has established this overarching definition of workers’ compensation and its purpose, each state government is responsible for creating its own system and regulation for workers’ compensation. This has led to some stark differences in the workers’ compensation systems of varying states.
While there is some debate about which system – private or state-controlled – works best, there is ample research to suggest the private model uses the free market to improve coverage, lower costs and protect workers.
​