fbpx

Montana Worker Compensation Rates Among Highest in the Country

By Beacon Staff

HELENA – High medical and wage claims costs for workers determined to be permanently partially disabled are the major factors behind the state’s high workers compensation insurance rates, a Montana State Fund analysis said.

Dan Gengler, the state fund’s internal actuary, presented a report Friday to the State Fund’s board of directors outlining why worker’s compensation insurance premiums for Montana businesses were the second-highest in the nation for fiscal 2008.

State lawmakers are looking for ways to reduce costs, and plan to meet Wednesday to discuss options they might pursue during the 2011 Legislature.

“I’ve talked to a hundred businesses, and there are jobs available, but they can’t afford to hire anyone because the work comp rates are so high,” said Sen. Ryan Zinke, R-Whitefish, a member of the Economic Affairs Interim Committee.

Gengler’s report said claims from workers deemed “permanently partially disabled” make up 9 percent of claims but account for 70 percent of overall work comp costs.

Someone with a permanent partial disability has a workplace injury that permanently restricts the ability to work. Benefits include wage payments while missing work and medical coverage.

Gengler’s report said such claims occur in Montana at a rate 50 percent higher than the average in other states and that medical costs for such claims are twice as much as other states.

The 2008 report said Montana’s work comp rates are about $3.50 for every $100 of payroll, 50 percent higher the national median of $2.25.

Montana law gives doctors broad authority to decide treatment in worker’s compensation claims, Gengler said.

Jerry Keck, head of the Employment Relations Division of the state Department of Labor and Industry, said Monday that his agency is drafting rules that could create treatment guidelines for specific injuries.

“In Montana, we have a system in which we rely on the opinion and recommendation of the physician for what treatment is provided,” Keck said. “There is very little opportunity for (review) to determine if the best treatments are being done.”