RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Step-downs reduce workers’ compensation payments to encourage return to work. Are they effective?
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 19012286
DO 10.1101/19012286
A1 Lane, Tyler J
A1 Sheehan, Luke R
A1 Gray, Shannon E
A1 Beck, Dianne
A1 Collie, Alex
YR 2019
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2019/11/19/19012286.abstract
AB Objective To determine whether step-downs, which cut the rate of compensation paid to injured workers after they have been on benefits for several months, incentivise return to work.Methods We aggregated administrative claims data from nine Australian workers’ compensation systems to calculate weekly scheme exit rates, a proxy for return to work. Jurisdictions were further subdivided into four injury subgroups: fractures, musculoskeletal, mental health, and other trauma. The effect of step-downs on scheme exit was tested using a regression discontinuity design. Results were pooled into meta-analyses to calculate combined effects and the proportion of variance attributable to heterogeneity.Results The combined effect of step-downs was a 0.61 percentage point (95% CI -1.16 to -0.05) reduction in the exit rate, with significant heterogeneity between jurisdictions (I2 = 73%, p = .001). Most significant effects were observed within earliest step-downs, implemented at 13 weeks of benefit payment. Within injury subgroups, only fractures had a significant combined effect (-0.84, 95% CI - 1.61 to -0.07), and sensitivity analysis suggested a potentially meaningful effect among mental health claims as well.Conclusions The results suggest step-downs prompt an anticipatory effect, meaning some claimants leave compensation ahead of the step-down to avoid the reduction in benefits. However, the effects were small and, given their anticipatory nature, probably short-lived. Our findings were statistically significant, but questions remain about practical significance. We find limited evidence that step- downs are an effective incentive for return to work.Key messagesWhat is already known about this subject?A number of workers’ compensation systems around the world reduce payments to injured workers after they have been in the system for several months, though there is little evidence on their efficacy as a return to work incentive. In Australia, each of the nine major workers’ compensation systems implements step-downs, offering a unique opportunity to test the effect on scheme exit rate, a proxy for return to work.What are the new findings?Exit rates increased in advance of step-downs, suggesting an anticipatory effect. However, the effect was small, increasing by less than two-thirds of a percentage point on average, and was mainly observed where step-downs occurred earlier.How might this impact on policy or clinical practice in the foreseeable future?The effect of step-downs on scheme exit is small and probably short-lived, suggesting they provide little incentive to return to work. Workers’ compensation systems may need to reconsider step- downs as a component of scheme design, or justify them as a cost-saving measure rather than an effective incentive return to work.Competing Interest StatementThe authors previously received salary support from funding provided by the workers’ compensation systems investigated in this study.Clinical Protocols https://osf.io/pt876/ Funding StatementThis study was funded by an Australian Research Council Discovery Project Grant (DP190102473), as part of the Compensation and Return to Work Effectiveness (COMPARE) Project, and by Safe Work Australia, a government statutory agency that develops national work health and safety and workers’ compensation policy.Author DeclarationsAll relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.YesAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAggregated data are publicly available on a FigShare repository, along with analytical code. Case-level data contain identifiable information and have not made available. We have provided cleaning file data at the FigShare repository to demonstrate our approach. The data source is the National Data Set for Compensation-based Statistics, provided by Safe Work Australia https://doi.org/10.26180/5dba1e5b4277a