Moving conventional workers compensation systems toward conflict resolution to provide better results

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (11) ◽  
pp. 179-181
Author(s):  
Richard A. Posthuma
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Systems

Use of the AMA Guides in State Workers' Compensation Systems: 2009 Update

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 13-16
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Jenny Walker
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
South Carolina ◽  
South Dakota ◽  
Rhode Island ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Specific Guideline ◽  
Compensation Systems

Abstract The AMAGuides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is the most widely used basis for determining impairment and is used in state workers’ compensation systems, federal systems, automobile casualty, and personal injury, as well as by the majority of state workers’ compensation jurisdictions. Two tables summarize the edition of the AMA Guides used and provide information by state. The fifth edition (2000) is the most commonly used edition: California, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Vermont, and Washington. Eleven states use the sixth edition (2007): Alaska, Arizona, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wyoming. Eight states still commonly make use of the fourth edition (1993): Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia. Two states use the Third Edition, Revised (1990): Colorado and Oregon. Connecticut does not stipulate which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Six states use their own state specific guidelines (Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin), and six states do not specify a specific guideline (Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, South Carolina, and Virginia). Statutes may or may not specify which edition of the AMA Guides to use. Some states use their own guidelines for specific problems and use the Guides for other issues.

What are physicians told about their role in return to work and workers’ compensation systems? An analysis of Canadian resources

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Agnieszka Kosny ◽  
Marni Lifshen ◽  
Ellen MacEachen ◽  
Andrea Furlan ◽  
Mieke Koehoorn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Return To Work ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Systems

The structure and process of workers’ compensation systems and the role of doctors: A comparison of Ontario and Québec

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (12) ◽  
pp. 1070-1086 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Lippel ◽  
Joan M. Eakin ◽  
D. Linn Holness ◽  
Dana Howse
Keyword(s):  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Systems

scholarly journals Does time off work after injury vary by jurisdiction? A comparative study of eight Australian workers' compensation systems

BMJ Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. e010910 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Collie ◽  
Tyler J Lane ◽  
Behrooz Hassani-Mahmooei ◽  
Jason Thompson ◽  
Chris McLeod
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Study ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Systems

scholarly journals Collider bias in administrative workers’ compensation claims data: A challenge for cross-jurisdictional research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tyler J Lane
Keyword(s):  
Work Disability ◽  
Claims Data ◽  
Occupational Injuries ◽  
Simulated Data ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Compensation Systems ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Analytical Approaches ◽  
Collider Bias ◽  
State Territory

Abstract Purpose Workers’ compensation claims consist of occupational injuries severe enough to meet a compensability threshold. Theoretically, systems with higher thresholds should have fewer claims but greater average severity. For research that relies on claims data, particularly cross-jurisdictional comparisons of compensation systems, this results in collider bias that can lead to spurious associations and confound analyses. In this study, I use real and simulated claims data to demonstrate collider bias and problems with methods used to account for it. Methods Using Australian claims data, I used a linear regression to test the association between claim rate and mean disability durations across Statistical Areas. Analyses were repeated with nesting by state/territory to account for variations in compensability thresholds across compensation systems. Both analyses are repeated on left-censored data. Simulated claims data are analysed with Cox survival analyses to illustrate how left-censoring can reverse effects.Results The claim rate within a Statistical Area was inversely associated with disability duration. However, this reversed when Statistical Areas were nested by state/territory. Left-censoring resulted in an attenuation of the unnested association to non-significance, while the nested association remained significantly positive. Cox regressions on simulated data showed left-censoring can also reverse effects. Conclusions Collider bias can seriously confound work disability research, particularly cross-jurisdictional comparisons. Work disability researchers must grapple with this challenge by using appropriate study designs and analytical approaches, and considering how collider bias affects interpretation of results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document