http://www.roc.capnet.state.tx.us/rtw_or.htm Return-to-Work Programs in Oregon and Their Applicability to Texas (August 1997) Introduction Returning an injured worker to employment which is commensurate with his or her abilities is one of the most important goals of any workers' compensation system. Unfortunately, the post-injury employment experience of injured workers in Texas has not been too encouraging. Research has shown time and again that a significant number of injured workers with permanent impairments are having difficulty getting back to work in Texas. For instance, a recent study by the Research and Oversight Council on Workers' Compensation (ROC) found that nearly one-third of the permanently impaired workers injured in 1993 were not working in November 1996 due to their injury, and 17 percent of these workers had never returned to work following their 1993 injury. This report summarizes the results of previous return-to-work studies in Texas and provides details and outcomes data on two innovative return-to-work programs currently in place in Oregon: the Preferred Worker Program and the Employer-at-Injury Program. Finally, the report addresses the applicability of the Oregon programs to the Texas workers' compensation environment. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Concluding Observations Although significant change was made to the Texas workers' compensation system in 1989, a substantial percentage of injured workers, particularly permanently impaired workers, are still having difficulty returning to work following their on-the-job injuries. Research has identified a number of factors in the Texas environment associated with successful post-injury work experience. Some of these factors include: employer support of return-to-work efforts, body part injured, degree of permanent impairment, and industry. Oregon Return-to-Work Programs The statutory return-to-work programs currently in place in Oregon attempt to address some of the problems associated with post-injury return to work. The Preferred Worker Program (PWP) provides permanently impaired injured workers with a package of employment incentives (i.e., premium exemption, wage subsidies) to persuade employers to hire or rehire them. The Employer-at-Injury Program (EAIP) encourages early return to work by providing financial incentives (i.e., wage subsidies, worksite modification, and program purchases) for employers to bring their injured workers back to the workplace for light duty work. Though no definitive cost/benefit analyses have been done on the programs to date, program data collected over the past five years has shown promising results in terms of employer participation, worker participation, and return-to-work outcomes. The PWP and EAIP appear to be especially attractive to small employers who historically do not have the resources or expertise to create extensive return-to-work or disability management programs. Applicability to the Texas Environment The PWP and EAIP programs are very relevant to the Texas workers' compensation system because they directly address several factors consistently associated with successful return-to-work experience in Texas. The PWP and EAIP programs have attracted injured workers who were hurt on-the-job in some of the more dangerous industries such as manufacturing or construction. These are the industries which have demonstrated some of the least successful return-to-work patterns in Texas. The PWP and EAIP emphasize increased employer participation in return-to-work efforts. Research has clearly shown higher employer involvement to improve the likelihood of successful return-to-work in Texas. The PWP directly targets permanently impaired injured wokrers, who time after time have the most difficulty returning to work in Texas. The Oregon programs have also attracted a large percentage of workers with back injuries. In Texas, back injuries have been shown to be associated with poor return to work and longer durations of disability. Program Concerns The Oregon programs, however, are not without room for improvement. Survey data for the PWP indicate that program participants felt longer wage subsidy periods and more active promotion of the PWP program to employers would be beneficial. On the other hand, employers felt that preferred workers needed additional training to provide them with more marketable job skills. Educational efforts to induce workers to use the programs might also be advantageous since the primary reason workers did not use their preferred worker cards was because they did not want to identify themselves as injured workers to prospective employers. Since 65 percent of employers who hired preferred workers contacted the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services to get additional information on the PWP program, it is highly likely that additional staffing and appropriations for the Texas Workers' Compensation Commission would be necessary if these programs were implemented in Texas. Another concern about implementing these programs in Texas is the funding mechanism. The PWP and EAIP programs are currently funded by a payroll tax assessed equally on workers and employers. The assessment needed to pay for both of the Oregon programs is just .45 cents per hour for workers and .45 cents per hour for employers. It would be problematic to impose such a tax on all employers in Texas since 39 percent of employers have opted out of the Texas workers' compensation system.2 It might be necessary to limit the assessment to employers with workers' compensation coverage since nonsubscribing employers and their employees would not benefit from these programs. Thus, it appears that the PWP and EAIP programs may have some applicability to the Texas workers' compensation system. Texas workers could benefit greatly from the additional return-to-work incentives while employers could save money on claim costs by encouraging their workers to come back to light-duty work. It is important to note, however, that the implementation of these programs in Texas would require statutory changes be made to the labor code. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: See Research and Oversight Council on Workers' Compensation, An Analysis of Texas Workers with Permanent Impairments, 1996. Return to Footnote Link 1 See Research and Oversight Council on Workers' Compensation, Annual Nonsubscription Survey: 1996 Estimates, 1996. Return to Footnote Link 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------