Myths and faulty assumptions about what motivates injured workers only adds insult to injury

According to a number of researchers, including the Australian Productivity Commission, for years the real costs of workers compensation in most states have resulted from the mismanagement of schemes by the government.  Furthermore, research shows that workers compensation schemes across Australia are based on incorrect assumptions about what motivates injured workers.

Myths and faulty assumptions about what motivates injured workers only adds insult to injury

These assumptions are dangerous and have led to the further erosion of benefits to injured workers.  The logic behind these policies? They provide a disincentive that prevents cheating the system and discourages malingering.  We would argue that this is cynical and dismal view taken by politicians who are poorly schooled in human behaviour and motivation.  This has led to the development of systems that uses punishment and coercion in order to motivate injured workers.

Research carried out on behalf of the Industrial Health and Research Foundation, in 2011, highlighted a number of false assumptions governing current systems:

Fraudulent claims are overstated

Despite research claims that false claims increase when larger payouts are available, these represent a tiny fraction of overall claims that are legitimate.   Emphasis has been placed on minor increases without considering the fact that many legitimate injuries never reach the claims stage.  The failure to detect false claims is systems issue.  The current assumption is to treat all claims as though they are fraudulent rather than improving the system to detect the small amount of claims that fall into this category

The under-reporting of legitimate claims

Most reported injuries never make it to the claim stage  – in fact, it has been found that many people persevere with injuries to the point of being forced to take time off work for treatment and recovery.  If anything, legitimate claims for workers compensation are under reported.  The current assumption seems to be that workers will make claims for false and or frivolous reasons.

There is no incentive to claim, for most workers

Most workers return to work as soon as their injuries have healed regardless of the issue of economic incentive (previous and more equitable entitlement available) or disincentive (reduced entitlements that reflect disadvantages of the current system).  This suggests that the vast majority of workers are unlikely to make false claims, despite the assumption that false claim costs would skyrocket if larger claims are made available.

Poor claims and injury management process is a major issue

Other factors associated with poor return to work management need to be considered as a major reason for prolonging claims resolution.  Failure by employers, insurers, providers and workplace health and safety all play major roles in successfully managing claim, however, injured workers and their families are routinely penalised by the current system.

Complacency about safety is a myth

There is no evidence to support claims that workers become complacent about  safety when higher rates of compensation are available.  Previous concerns have been based on false assumptions based on questionable research data. Most people simply do not ignore safety in order to qualify for workers compensation.

Adding insult to injury

The stepping down of workers compensation in recent years has exacerbated problems typically associated with injury management and recovery (financial distress, family problems etc).  This has also given rise to secondary injuries (i.e. depression and anxiety) on top of many injuries that were initially physical in nature.   This suggests the likelihood that many short to medium term injuries turning into long-term problems is substantially increased.

The moral hazard, taxpayers pay for negligence

Poor injury management ends up being paid for by taxpayers as more and more injured workers fail to make successful transitions back into the workforce.  Employers routinely view many people who have been unfortunate enough to be on workers compensation as liabilities best avoided, which limits the potential injured workers (especially with long term injuries and psychological injuries) from ever returning to pre-injury employment status and earning capacity.  Many long-term injured workers end up being forced onto unemployment benefits at taxpayer’s expense.  Employers have limited liability and therefore little incentive to take the health, safety and wellbeing on injured workers seriously.

Interestingly, the research focused primarily on physical injuries – however, the growing concern is the increase in psychological injuries, both primary and secondary, resulting from the poor management of claims (not only by insurers, but employers who take a negative view of injured workers).   Reductions in wages, financial pressures, and poor return to work management are all implicated.   The real concern is that given physical injury claims should be relatively straightforward to manage – which it seems is anything but, because the system is more adversarial towards injured workers, in general. The rapid rise in psychological injuries in many workplaces only places greater pressure on the entire system, because the management of psychological injuries are significantly more complex and time consuming to manage than physical injuries.

The rising costs of psychological injuries

Claims data for psychological injury for Australian government organisations over recent years indicates a rise in these types of claims.  Work pressure accounts for around 50 per cent of psychological injury claims. The next most significant category for Australian government organisations is harassment/bullying combined’ – which accounts for around a quarter of psychological injury claims. Of declining importance in recent years is ‘exposure to workplace or occupational violence’ which accounts for only about 10 per cent of psychological injury claims. ‘Exposure to a traumatic event’ (which includes witnessing a fatal or other accident) accounts for less than 5 per cent of psychological injury claims.

According to Comcare, Australia’s federal work health and safety regulator, claims associated with mental stress have risen 54% since 2006-2007.  Work related mental stress is of concern in the Comcare scheme, especially in the APS. The number and proportion of worker’s compensation claims as well as the cost of psychological injury claims, has increased over recent years.

Over the four-year period to 30 June 2010:

> around 9 per cent of accepted Australian Government premium payer claims were attributed to mental stress; and

> around 35 per cent of total claim costs related to these claims.

However, the impact of mental stress is even greater when secondary conditions are taken into consideration. There are a number of cases where the initial claim was not caused by mental stress, but the injured worker developed a mental disease as a secondary medical condition. Taking these cases into consideration, over the same period:

> around 11 per cent of all accepted claims within Australian Government premium payers involved mental disease as either a primary or secondary condition

> around 43 per cent of the total cost of accepted claims related to these claims.

There also tends to be a limited view of the work capacity of people facing these problems. According to Comcare employers struggle to find suitable duties for people with a psychological injury claim. Those with a psychological injury do not return to work as quickly as those with claims for non-psychological injures. For example, during 2010–11, 49% of the mental stress claims from employees of Australian Government premium payers that involved 4 weeks lost time from work progressed to 26 weeks lost time. This compares to just 23% of all other claims that progressed from 4 to 26 weeks lost time during the same period.

References

Comcare. (2011). Comcare submission to the public hearing: House standing committee on education and employment inquiry into mental health and workplace participation. Australian Government.

Productivity Commission. (2004). National worker’s compensation and occupational health and safety frameworks. Final report.  Australian Government.

Purse, K. (2011).  Provisions of fair and competitive worker’s compensation legislation, University of South Australia.  Research funded by the Industrial Health and Research Foundation

 

http://wp.me/p1MA9G-3h8

 

About Workcovervictims

We are the authors, co-authors, seriously injured workers and invisible supporters (incl. abled family members and friends) behind A Diary of a WorkCover Victim. We hope this site, our and many other injured workers’ stories will somehow help other injured workers navigating the murky waters of the workcover system, and, at the very least, teach you to be extremely diligent in finding out your legitimate rights, always questioning the “system” in order to keep some sort of control within the workcover system. The workers compensation is – in our opinion- extremely adversarial and they use tactics to wear you down, to make you emotionally bleed out, to break you, all in order to weaken your position and to maximise their insane profits.

, , ,

8 Responses to Myths and faulty assumptions about what motivates injured workers only adds insult to injury

  1. Pauline Pope August 20, 2012 at 9:36 AM #

    Another excellent article. Thanks John. Methiinks the demonisation of injured workers is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Insurers and Workover systems alike want to take the public gaze away from the true rorts and troughs within the system. I must admit I was surprised that CGU finally got caught in Victoria for rorting millions of dollars in bonus payments out of the system. Someone must be doing their job! I know from bitter personal experience that CGU rorted me personally over the many years that they were my claims manager.
    It’s also interesting that CGU continues as a Workover claims manager in other states despite their criminal activity in Victoria!

  2. John McPhilbin August 20, 2012 at 9:44 AM #

    Hi Pauline

    Where did you hear about CGU? Do you have a link?

    • workcovervictim August 20, 2012 at 10:01 AM #

      According to the Performance report from worksafe (ahum): CGU incurred a remuneration reduction of $2.8M. This was comprised of the following:
      - $891,000 for the failure to meet minimum processing standards in respect of the payment of service provider accounts; and
      - $1,912,111 for the failure to maintain effective internal quality controls in relation to accounts management which resulted in the
      occurrence of the manipulation of data used to determine performance on remunerated performance measures.
      • CGU were also required to reimburse WorkSafe $1.5 million in incentive payments paid, or penalties avoided due to the
      manipulation of data.
      • Xchanging incurred a remuneration reduction of $125,000 – for the failure to maintain effective internal controls in relation to privacy.

      The ombudsman report (2011) can be found here

    • Pauline Pope August 20, 2012 at 10:43 AM #

      Someone on the site told me about it John, I think, when I posted one of my stories on here and mentioned that CGU had not had its contract renewed in Victoria. I read that in the newspapers, after I’d received notification that my Claims Management had shifted to X-Changing. I didn’t know they’d been caught with their fingers in the till, though I’d long suspected that to be the case. My suspicions arose from the litany of messes they made in regard to my own claims over the years. I complained about them vociferously over the years, whenever remissions in my mental illness enabled me to do the intellectual work required to complain. This was in spite of knowing that the act of complaining would exacerbate the ptsd and depression all over again. Quite a vice they put psychiatrically injured workers in, but it also sounds as if being in the system causes the same sort of injuries to those who begin with physical injuries! AARGH. When a system doesn’t make sense I now know there is corruption and bullying at its heart.
      Thanks to aninjuredworker for your good work too in sourcing that link. Not up to heavy duty reading in my current cycle yet, but it will be useful when my brain is fully on board.

  3. John McPhilbin August 20, 2012 at 10:36 AM #

    Reframed it poses some questions for NSW and other states. Thanks for this lead it is worth posting. I have no doubt similar failures exist in the NSW system

    Insurance company incompetence: Injured workers face a system in crisis
    http://www.injuredworkerssupport.org.au/?p=1918

    • WorkcoverVictim August 20, 2012 at 1:47 PM #

      Worth repeating over and over again and you are right, John, NSW (and all other states) would also need an urgent investigation into the behaviour and competency of workcover insurance. God knows what would come out of the can of worms!
      In fact the Ombudsman ought to investigate this EVERY YEAR.

Leave a Reply

Attach a file Uploading File types: jpg, png, gif,doc,docx,pdf,ppt,txt,wmv,flv,rtf,mp4,mp3,swf,zip, Max size: 500Mbytes, Max count: 3