The Grand Compromise - Premise undercut?

In my post of 7/30/12, I discussed the interesting article written by attorney John Stahl, entitled "Many Work-related Disabilities Go Uncompensated: Compromising "The Great Compromise." The article can be found at http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/workerscompensationlaw/blogs/workerscompensationlawblog/archive/2012/06/18/many-work-related-disabilities-go-uncompensated-compromising-the-great-compromise.aspx.  Mr. Stahl's article discussed the possible reasons for underreporting of claims discussed in the Journal of Occupational medicine's June 2012 edition.  Specifically the authors noted: 

The number of claims for workers’ compensation has
been declining. The decline in the frequency of temporary
total disability claims mirrors the drop in reported frequency
of injuries in the BLS data ... The capture–recapture studies cited above,
as well as the recent GAO study that focused on underreporting of
OSHA data [GAO, 2009], suggest, however, that there
may be substantial underreporting in all of these systems.

On July 13, 2012, however, this article appeared on WorkcompWire discussing the latest data on WC claims released by the National Counsel on Compensation Insurance (NCCI), http://www.workcompwire.com/2012/07/ncci-releases-2012-claims-frequency-report/?goback=%2Egde_80469_member_134280169.  In contrast to the Journal of Occupational Medicine article, the NCCI found: 

2011 Overall Trends

• Prior to the 2010 uptick of 3%, claim frequency had been declining at an average rate of more than 4% per year since 1990. According to preliminary estimates, lost-time claim frequency once again declined in 2011 by 1%.
• For indemnity and medical combined, the average cost per lost-time claim increased 3.2% in 2011.

Frequency Per Payroll vs. Per Premium

• Claim frequency measured relative to payroll (frequency per payroll) varies far more by class than frequency measured relative to premium (frequency per premium).
• Hence, changes in industry mix typically have a greater impact on frequency per payroll than on frequency per premium measures.
• The decline in the construction industry resulting from the recession put downward pressure on frequency per payroll and upward pressure on frequency per premium.

As the data examined by Mr. Stahl and by Ms. Spieler and Professor Burton preceded the release of the NCCI data, this likely reflects only the differece in the reporting available at the time.  The NCCI report reflects though:  "The Great Recession of 2007–2009 was the most serious and long lasting economic contraction since the Great Depression. The recession and its tepid recovery had a considerable influence on workers compensation claim frequency." 

As discussed in my post of 7/30/12, to the extent that there was a drop in the number of claims expected, "might not the explanation lie in a slower economy with less people working?"  
Perhaps I do not understand the statistical information examined.  I will confess to an aversion to all things mathematical.  If the frequency of claims is on the rise, most especially in a tight labor market, where is the dearth of claims "expected to have been filed" as the basis of the idea that workers are being discouraged from filing/pursuing claims or somehow are unable to navigate the system. 

If the NCCI data is the final word then yes, there appears to have been a decrease in claim frequency leading up to 1997.  I wonder though how that decrease might correlate with expanded employment and with the change in the work requirements of the welfare program known as the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).  Having opened up that can of worms, maybe it's time for reflection and not supposition on my part.
"Skedsvold & White
Join us on Facebook