|
MARYLAND PROVIDES BETTER “VALUE PROPOSITION”
FOR INJURED WORKERS AND EMPLOYERS COMPARED TO NINE OTHER
STATES, REPORTS WCRI STUDY
CAMBRIDGE, MA, October 23, 2008
–
When employers pay more for medical
care for injured workers, workers should experience better
outcomes. Otherwise, the logical question becomes: “Why are
employers paying more?”
Comparing Outcomes for Injured
Workers in Maryland, a new study by the Workers
Compensation Research Institute (WCRI), analyzed how
Maryland compared with nine other states within the context
of this “key value proposition.”
When compared to nine other states,
on most measures outcomes for injured workers in Maryland
were generally in the middle of the range or better.
The study juxtaposed worker
outcomes in each study state within the areas of recovery of
physical health and functioning, return to work, access to
medical care and satisfaction with medical care with data on
the costs and utilization of medical care.
On average, employers in Maryland paid less for medical care
per claim with more than 7 days of lost time than most other
study states. The average paid medical cost per claim with
more than 7 days of lost time was 31 percent lower than the
average medical cost in the median of the ten states
studied, largely due to a lower than typical fee schedule.
Recoveries of injured workers in Maryland were in the middle
of the range of states studied, according to WCRI. The
average worker in Maryland received a typical amount of
medical care and reported a typical physical recovery after
his or her injury.
Workers in Maryland had return-to-work outcomes typical of
the study states, said WCRI. Nine percent of Maryland
workers reported never having returned to work and 15
percent reported never having a substantial return to work
(one that lasted at least 1 month) predominantly due to
their injury as of 2½ years postinjury.
Maryland
workers typically returned to substantial employment within
8 weeks of their injury, putting the state in the middle
group of states. Only 21 percent of Maryland workers did not
have a substantial return to work 1 year postinjury – a
better outcome compared to most other states studied.
However, 38 percent of workers reported that they returned
to work “too soon” – the second highest among the states
studied.
The study also found that:
·
Workers in Maryland reported problems accessing medical care
that were typical of the states in the study. Some 12
percent of workers reported that they were very dissatisfied
with how quickly they saw their primary provider after their
injury, similar to the middle group of states (10 to 14
percent).
· The vast majority of workers in Maryland reported that they
were somewhat or very satisfied with the timeliness of their
first visit to their initial and primary provider (82
percent for each measure).
· Some workers, however, did report “big problems” in gaining
access to the providers or services they wanted – 8 to 11
percent, depending on the question asked.
· The vast majority of workers (82 percent) reported that they
were somewhat or very satisfied overall with the care they
received. Although, approximately 1 in 10 said they were
very dissatisfied with their medical care, this was still in
the middle of the range of states studied.
· Maryland
had among the lowest percentage of workers who wanted to
change their initial or primary providers due to
dissatisfaction with their care. Fewer Maryland workers
wanted to change providers than in most other study states.
The study consisted of telephone
interviews with 754 workers in Maryland who received
workers’ compensation income benefits for injuries that
arose between November 2003 and May 2004. The interviews
were conducted during June to September 2007 – on average,
about 3½ years after the dates of the workers’ injuries.
The Workers
Compensation Research Institute is a nonpartisan,
not-for-profit membership organization supported in its
public policy research by employers, insurers, insurance
regulators and state administrative agencies in the U.S.,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as several state
labor organizations.
|