Dispute holds up workers comp hike
A dispute has slowed down the regulatory process for approving the hike, which was intended to take effect
The increase is designed to account for a state Supreme Court ruling that voided a cost-saving measure in Pennsylvanias workers compensation law, sparking fears of higher costs.
But it is being opposed by a group representing
The request for higher rates was filed in August by the
An actuary hired by the trial lawyers' group challenged the calculations and estimates used by the bureau to come up with what amounts to a roughly 6 percent increase in insurance premiums. The move is expected to cost businesses
"We respectfully request that you review his analysis and, in light of his finding, reject PCRBs loss cost filing or delay consideration at least until you have had an opportunity to hold a hearing on this important matter,"
A man who answered the phone at the association on Thursday confirmed the filing, but declined to comment further.
The rating bureau filed a rebuttal on behalf of its work.
"Were defending it pretty aggressively," said
Also defending the increase is the state
A decision on the rate hike is unlikely to take place by
"We still are not sure what the department will do," Taylor said.
The rating bureau typically files just one rate request per year to take effect in April.The court ruling itself revolves around use of so-called impairment review evaluations. The evaluations allowed companies, in certain cases, to cap costs for paying out wages lost due to worker injury.
Established by Act 57 of 1996, a workers comp reform measure, the evaluations were ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court this summer.
State lawmakers are considering legislation that would restore use of the evaluations.
Critics have argued that other provisions of Act 57 are sufficient to hold down costs for employers, an argument echoed by the
In its objection to the rate hike, the group argued that the rating bureau overestimated the cost of losing impairment review evaluations.
And it noted that employers and insurers can still use a provision known as compromise and release, under which companies and employees can agree to final lump-sum settlements of injury claims.View the full article from the
Copyright 2017 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
CREDIT:


Trump: Texas Mass Shooting Is About Mental Health, Not Guns
Decisions, decisions
Advisor News
- Berkeley arts tax heads toward passage while public bank measure looks likely to fail
- Americans’ sense of overall prosperity still ticks upward
- Turning expanded eligibility into a better coverage plan for federal clients
- Election 2026: Which of Berkeley's 7 ballot measures will pass?
- How advisors can help frugal retirees finally enjoy their savings
More Advisor NewsAnnuity News
- AM Best Affirms Credit Ratings of Knighthead Annuity & Life Assurance Company and Merit Life Insurance Co.
- Jackson reports record annuity sales, increases share repurchase authorization
- Why the market doesn’t need more carriers
- Equitable, Corebridge steam toward merger with strong Q3 annuity sales
- Jackson Announces New Annuity Offering for AARP Members
More Annuity NewsHealth/Employee Benefits News
- US Department of Justice Intervenes in Health Insurance Whistleblower Lawsuit Brought by Lieff Cabraser Against Centene Corporation
- The caregiving generation doesn’t want to repeat their parents’ mistakes
- Lawmakers warming to discussing long-term care
- Health and Humor: Medicare Plus Supplement vs. Medicare Advantage (maybe) 2026
- CVS Health will spin off Aetna after eight years
More Health/Employee Benefits NewsLife Insurance News
- Prudential earnings dip as Japan sales suspension offsets U.S. growth
- U-Haul Holding Company Reports Second Quarter Fiscal 2027 Financial Results
- Genworth Financial Announces Third Quarter 2026 Results
- AM Best Affirms Credit Ratings of Knighthead Annuity & Life Assurance Company and Merit Life Insurance Co.
- Why the market doesn’t need more carriers
More Life Insurance News