State Safety Initiative

  • 164 views
Uploaded on

 

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
164
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Statewide Safety and Wellness Leadership Initiative Risk Seminar Oregon Department of Administrative Services-Risk Management Salem Oregon October 23, 2006
  • 2. Historical Perspective Leonard Sweet, Historian, Futurist
    • “ If we do not learn from history, we shall be compelled to relive it.
    • True.
    • But if we do not change the future, we shall be compelled to endure it.
    • And that could be worse.”
  • 3. Safety as a State Business Function Pre-1980
    • State Safety Manager - Executive Department
      • Accident Prevention Model –
        • Post-1972: OSHA compliance focused
      • Position eliminated in 1978-82 recession
    • SAIF – state’s insurer by statute
      • Loss control services to each agency
      • Claim handling by local office
      • Set “payroll rate” that was deducted monthly from agency budgets
  • 4. Safety as a State Business Function 1980 to 1987
    • Safety is managed by the Agency Head
      • Agency option to designate safety position
      • Some agency safety staff addressed claims
      • WC budget set for biennium
    • SAIF
      • Appointed a State Agency Account Rep
      • Claims and Loss Control handled locally
      • SAIF designated payroll rates annually
  • 5. Safety as a State Business Function 1980 to 1987
    • Safety perceived as responsibility of safety staff or committees, SAIF or OR-OSHA
    • Safety positions and program funding often cut in budget reduction exercises
    • OSHA compliance model did not align with causes of claims
    • Once injured, employees were SAIF’s responsibility
    • SAIF business model did not align with agency needs
    • “ SAIF” costs regularly exceeded budget
  • 6. Costs Exceeded Budget
  • 7. and Costs Attract Attention
    • Hard insurance market for work comp drove costs nationally
    • Oregon had 6 th most expensive system in nation
    • On the radar screen of the newly elected Governor and others
    • Legislature directed agencies to study the cause of wc costs exceeding budget, so…
  • 8. Statewide Safety Initiative
    • Issue: Work comp costs were rising rapidly.
    • Charge: Learn the cause and develop a plan to bring costs in control.
    • Areas of Focus:
      • Perception and Opinion of Key Stakeholders
      • Management Systems to address safety and work comp
      • Data analysis
  • 9. Risk Management Surveyed Agencies’ Perceptions
    • Oregon laws prevented management of claims and allowed “abuse”
    • SAIF overcharged state agencies to balance losses from small policy holders
    • Work comp claimants “malinger” because many “injuries” had no “accident” cause
    • Managers could be sued if they called injured workers at home
  • 10. Risk Management Surveyed Agencies’ Perceptions
    • Injured workers had to be “100%” before they could return to work
    • Agency safety efforts made no impact on the “rates” SAIF charged
    • Safety was not on the “front burner” for agency head performance expectations
    • Agency executives did not know what good performance looked like
  • 11. Risk Management Looked at Safety/WC Management Systems
    • Accident Prevention/OSHA Compliance model
    • Safety staff “averaged” SR 19 – many layers to executive staff
    • Injured Worker management and claim oversight in HR, few experts, always an “additional” duty, RTW late and spotty, attention to claim reserves
    • Policies related to injured worker rights or legal compliance not management duties or expectations
    • Premium Charges were “automated", not understood and not responsive to agency action
  • 12. Risk Management Examined Claims Data
    • 80% of claims and costs came from twelve agencies
    • Nature and cause of most injuries had not changed, except
    • Agencies, like the rest of Oregon, had rapid rise in stress claim filing
    • Time loss occurrences were 25% of agencies’ claims and caused 95% of costs
  • 13. 1980s State Experience: Serious Claims per 100 FTE
  • 14. 1987 Statewide Safety Initiative Key Elements
    • Executive Order to reduce injuries and, thus, reduce WC budget impact
    • Agency Heads continue to be responsible for safety and managing WC costs
    • Partner with SAIF and DIF (now DCBS) to address program, training, system and process needs
    • Focus resources on the Top 12 agencies to improve performance
  • 15. 1987 Statewide Safety Initiative Key Elements
    • DAS-Risk intervened with WC finance model
      • Risk established work comp component of Self-insurance fund
      • Risk negotiated insurance terms and conditions with SAIF on behalf of all agencies
      • SAIF bills Risk Management for all costs
      • Risk bills agencies through annual Risk Charges and biennial budget process
  • 16. Workers’ Compensation Costs
  • 17. 1987 Statewide Safety Initiative Key Elements
    • Time Loss Occurrences became the Performance Measure
    • Goal: to reduce serious injuries by 50% over a four year period
    • Agency heads given data and reports that tracked progress
  • 18. Environmental Changes in Oregon
    • SAIF reorganized its business model - 1989
    • Major legislative changes to work comp statutes
      • 1987 changes Occupational Disease (“stress” claim) compensability
      • 1990 Mahonia Hall - Labor / Management Advisory Group
      • 1990 Special Session
  • 19. Safety Initiative 1987 to 1992
  • 20. Statewide Safety Initiative 1987 to 1992
  • 21. Statewide Safety Initiative 1992-2005
    • Safety Advisors – lead internal agency programs
    • Injured Worker Management systems
      • Timely claim filing
      • Early RTW at Temporary Transitional Duty
      • Return to Work
      • Claim resolution
      • Coordination with Employment Claims
    • SAIF’s Oregon Claims Team, Return to Work Consultants and Loss Consultants
  • 22. Statewide Safety Initiative 1992-2005
  • 23. What we are seeing in 2006
    • Claim frequency is flat
    • Medical costs are increasing about 10%
    • Temporary disability payments are based on wages that are increasing
    • Legislative changes increases the state’s risk related to compensability, disability awards and vocational services
    • State is now paying on 10 full open plan years
    • Actuaries’ claim cost projections for past years are increasing rapidly
  • 24. Costs are rising
    • Work Comp Risk Charges Increasing
    • 55%
    • for 2007-09 biennium
  • 25. We remember…
    • If we do not learn from history, we shall be compelled to relive it.
    • True.
    • But if we do not change the future, we shall be compelled to endure it.
    • And that could be worse.”
  • 26. What are we doing to change the future?
    • DAS, Independent Actuaries and SAIF have reviewed statewide cost and claim data
    • DAS-Risk Safety Consultant has interviewed key agency Safety Advisors
    • Safety Operations Council convened to provide ongoing input and collaborate on activities and best practices
    • Executive Steering Committee led by DAS Director’s Office and including technical expert and stakeholder representatives is sponsoring and guiding
  • 27. 2006 Safety and Wellness Leadership Initiative - Focus Areas
    • Organizational Culture
      • Employee Feedback
    • Management Systems
      • Self-Assessment Tool
    • Data analysis
      • Target high risk / high opportunity
  • 28. Safety and Wellness Leadership Initiative - Key Strategies
    • Management leadership and accountability
    • Individual Involvement & Accountability
    • Safety and Wellness Programs
    • Learning Processes: Training & Communication
  • 29. Impact on the Employee Experience Individual Employee Experience ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES MANAGEMENT PROCESSES ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
  • 30. Future opportunities….
    • Questions?