Comments on: Ohio Employers Split Over Group Rating Issue http://blog.wcmsinc.com/2007/11/19/ohio-employers-split-over-group-rating-issue/ Workers' Compensation Blog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:21:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3 By: Steve Chmielewski http://blog.wcmsinc.com/2007/11/19/ohio-employers-split-over-group-rating-issue/#comment-3 Steve Chmielewski Tue, 20 Nov 2007 18:51:37 +0000 http://blog.wcmsinc.com/2007/11/19/ohio-employers-split-over-group-rating-issue/#comment-3 There were two other groups that had slightly different points. Large credit rated employers stand to have their premium increased if the BWC reduces the maximum credibility. For example, rather than receiving a 50% discount, a large fully credible employer would receive only a 40% credit. Two employers raised this issue. Their basic take was that if the credibility percents are to be reduced, they should only be reduced for groups, not individual employers. There was also a representative from a public group. They opposed the reduction in max credibility for the same reason most of the private group representatives did, that it would increase premium. The actuarial analyses showing a subsidy from non-grouped employers to grouped employers did not conclude that a similar subsidy was being paid by non-grouped <i>public</i> employers. Public employers are very distinct as a group from private employers and the analysis performed on one group does not necessarily hold for the other. There were two other groups that had slightly different points. Large credit rated employers stand to have their premium increased if the BWC reduces the maximum credibility. For example, rather than receiving a 50% discount, a large fully credible employer would receive only a 40% credit. Two employers raised this issue. Their basic take was that if the credibility percents are to be reduced, they should only be reduced for groups, not individual employers.

There was also a representative from a public group. They opposed the reduction in max credibility for the same reason most of the private group representatives did, that it would increase premium. The actuarial analyses showing a subsidy from non-grouped employers to grouped employers did not conclude that a similar subsidy was being paid by non-grouped public employers. Public employers are very distinct as a group from private employers and the analysis performed on one group does not necessarily hold for the other.

]]>