Agenda - Council - 04/27/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Page 2 April 13, 1982 Many people have written in support of the Harkman Report. However, there were a number of shortcomings which should Be pointed out. One recommendation would actually }lave increased cost to employers by 4 percent. That recommendation would have increased maximum benefits to 150 percent of the State's average weekly wage and would have provided benefit increases to higher paid injured workers, while reducing benefits to workers making less than $500 per week. Another provision in the Markman Report would have required that the employer pay the first five days of all lost wages and all medical expenses. In conclusion, the bill that the Legislature passed would have made significant reforms in the system. Besides mandating a 16 percent premium reduction, it also limited the rate increase that is currently pending to 2.3 percent--down from the 11.8 percent that was asked for by the insurance industry. Clearly, the bill would have moved the system a long way in the right direction and we would have been the only state in this area that would have reduced workers' compensation costs for the second year in a row. The bill we passed in 1981 mandated premium reductions of 15 percent. Unfortunately, the Commissioner of Insurance granted a 10.8 percent rate increase. The legislative efforts of 1981 and 1982 would have resulted in net premium savings to employers of almost 29 percent. However, the rate increase of 1981 and the veto of 1982 have greatly undercut our efforts. We have been making and will continue to make every reasonable effort toward further lowering premium costs to state employers, but we also will work to retain the legitimate benefits for our State's injured workers. To do otherwise, would lessen our own self-respect as state citizens and lower our traditional standing as a just and humane state. S in~r~y, Senate Majority Leader RDM:als