Less is also paid out for disability because older workers, supposedly retiring at age 65 or so, have a much shorter life/work span for which they might be reimbursed for lost future wages!
when you have states that have a presumption of disability (like NC) that doesn’t end until the person either returns to work, refuses suitable employment or dies, it’s hard to accept that older workers cost less on the indemnity side of the claim
Mandatory health care will be largely delivered thru employers. As an older employee (65+) gets their health care thru Medicare the employer won’t have health care costs as a concern.
60 year old worker. Ahhhhh, let’s say construction. Oh, and he’s union. Yup, Yup.
He hurts his back, he’s making $45 an hour, and guess what? His union doctor and his union lawyer says he won’t be working at his construction job anytime soon. So he gets to retire on his WC benefits, with big-time payout in Illinois.
Just ask West Bend, Pekin, and some others. They’re suffering through 90% incurred loss ratios over the past few years on Workers’ Compensation, and they have not fully taken their expected reserve hits. The tail on these WC claims is huge, and WB is in a panic. Pekin isn’t yet, but that’s only because they aren’t smart enough to know how bad it is.
Watch. Workers in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, are reaping the Wage Differential benefits available in Illinois. It’s the nasty little elephant in the corner that every carrier is trying to ignore.
I don’t consider the indemnity benefits to be significant on older workers. It’s the medical benefits that kill you. They claim recurring back pain which a lot of people get when they get old anyways, and then medicare (or medicaid; whichever is for old people) comes after the insurer for medical costs resulting from supposed work injury.
How is this good news for insurers?
Less is also paid out for disability because older workers, supposedly retiring at age 65 or so, have a much shorter life/work span for which they might be reimbursed for lost future wages!
when you have states that have a presumption of disability (like NC) that doesn’t end until the person either returns to work, refuses suitable employment or dies, it’s hard to accept that older workers cost less on the indemnity side of the claim
I agree, counselor, but CA reduces LTD based upon productive work life, which supposedly ends at 65 or whenever. OP
Mandatory health care will be largely delivered thru employers. As an older employee (65+) gets their health care thru Medicare the employer won’t have health care costs as a concern.
60 year old worker. Ahhhhh, let’s say construction. Oh, and he’s union. Yup, Yup.
He hurts his back, he’s making $45 an hour, and guess what? His union doctor and his union lawyer says he won’t be working at his construction job anytime soon. So he gets to retire on his WC benefits, with big-time payout in Illinois.
Just ask West Bend, Pekin, and some others. They’re suffering through 90% incurred loss ratios over the past few years on Workers’ Compensation, and they have not fully taken their expected reserve hits. The tail on these WC claims is huge, and WB is in a panic. Pekin isn’t yet, but that’s only because they aren’t smart enough to know how bad it is.
Watch. Workers in their 40’s, 50’s and 60’s, are reaping the Wage Differential benefits available in Illinois. It’s the nasty little elephant in the corner that every carrier is trying to ignore.
I don’t consider the indemnity benefits to be significant on older workers. It’s the medical benefits that kill you. They claim recurring back pain which a lot of people get when they get old anyways, and then medicare (or medicaid; whichever is for old people) comes after the insurer for medical costs resulting from supposed work injury.