On a biennial basis, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services produces a workers’ compensation premium rate summary of all states. The 2016 Oregon Report was published in October 2016. It essentially ranks states from the highest premium to the lowest. California is the highest (#1) and North Dakota is the lowest (#51).
The workers’ compensation insurance industry has argued that physician dispensing of medication is a major cost driver and should be regulated or abolished. The 2016 Oregon Report does not support this claim.
According to the National Council of Compensation Insurers (NCCI), the states with the highest level of physician dispensing include Florida, Georgia and Maryland. According to the Oregon report, Georgia is #27 and its premiums are below the median of all states; Florida is # 33 and Maryland is number # 38 and their premiums are substantially below the median (90% and 82% of median respectively).
The principal cost drivers in workers’ compensation are not physician dispensed medications. Indeed, data from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) indicates that physicians who dispense medications from their offices give out fewer pills per claim than doctors who write prescriptions to be filled at a pharmacy. Dispensing doctors more carefully monitor patient recovery and are a positive force in the system.
The Report’s state by state ranking appears below:
Table 2. Workers’ compensation premium rate ranking
2016 Ranking |
2014 Ranking |
State |
Index Rate | Percent of study median | Effective Date |
Percent of 2014 study median |
1 | 1 | California | 3.24 | 176% | January 1, 2016 | 188% |
2 | 3 | New Jersey | 2.92 | 158% | January 1, 2016 | 152% |
3 | 4 | New York | 2.83 | 154% | October 1, 2015 | 148% |
5 | 2 | Connecticut | 2.74 | 149% | January 1, 2016 | 155% |
5 | 5 | Alaska | 2.74 | 149% | January 1, 2016 | 145% |
6 | 9 | Delaware | 2.32 | 126% | December 1, 2015 | 125% |
8 | 6 | Oklahoma | 2.23 | 121% | January 1, 2016 | 137% |
8 | 7 | Illinois | 2.23 | 121% | January 1, 2015 | 127% |
9 | 20 | Rhode Island | 2.20 | 119% | August 1, 2014 | 107% |
10 | 10 | Louisiana | 2.11 | 115% | January 1, 2016 | 120% |
11 | 11 | Montana | 2.10 | 114% | July 1, 2015 | 119% |
12 | 23 | Wisconsin | 2.06 | 112% | October 1, 2015 | 104% |
14 | 8 | Vermont | 2.02 | 110% | April 1, 2015 | 125% |
14 | 13 | Maine | 2.02 | 110% | April 1, 2015 | 116% |
15 | 17 | Washington | 1.97 | 107% | January 1, 2016 | 108% |
17 | 27 | Hawaii | 1.96 | 107% | January 1, 2016 | 100% |
17 | 12 | New Hampshire | 1.96 | 106% | January 1, 2016 | 118% |
18 | 17 | South Carolina | 1.94 | 105% | September 1, 2015 | 108% |
20 | 21 | Missouri | 1.92 | 104% | January 1, 2016 | 107% |
20 | 20 | New Mexico | 1.92 | 104% | January 1, 2016 | 108% |
22 | 20 | Minnesota | 1.91 | 104% | January 1, 2016 | 107% |
22 | 27 | North Carolina | 1.91 | 103% | April 1, 2015 | 100% |
23 | 31 | Wyoming | 1.87 | 101% | January 1, 2016 | 95% |
24 | 24 | Iowa | 1.86 | 101% | January 1, 2016 | 101% |
25 | 29 | Alabama | 1.85 | 100% | March 1, 2015 | 97% |
26 | 17 | Pennsylvania | 1.84 | 100% | April 1, 2015 | 108% |
27 | 32 | Georgia | 1.80 | 98% | March 1, 2015 | 95% |
28 | 14 | Idaho | 1.79 | 97% | January 1, 2016 | 109% |
29 | 38 | Mississippi | 1.70 | 92% | March 1, 2015 | 85% |
30 | 22 | Tennessee | 1.68 | 91% | March 1, 2015 | 105% |
32 | 30 | Nebraska | 1.67 | 91% | February 1, 2015 | 96% |
32 | 25 | South Dakota | 1.67 | 91% | July 1, 2015 | 100% |
33 | 28 | Florida | 1.66 | 90% | January 1, 2016 | 98% |
34 | 34 | Michigan | 1.57 | 85% | January 1, 2015 | 91% |
35 | 41 | Colorado | 1.56 | 84% | January 1, 2016 | 81% |
36 | 40 | Kentucky | 1.52 | 82% | October 1, 2015 | 82% |
38 | 37 | Arizona | 1.50 | 82% | January 1, 2016 | 86% |
38 | 35 | Maryland | 1.50 | 82% | January 1, 2016 | 88% |
40 | 36 | Texas | 1.45 | 79% | July 1, 2015 | 87% |
40 | 33 | Ohio | 1.45 | 79% | July 1, 2015 | 94% |
41 | 39 | Kansas | 1.41 | 77% | January 1, 2016 | 83% |
42 | 45 | District of Columbia | 1.37 | 74% | November 1, 2015 | 70% |
43 | 46 | Nevada | 1.31 | 71% | March 1, 2015 | 68% |
44 | 48 | Massachusetts | 1.29 | 70% | April 1, 2014 | 63% |
45 | 43 | OREGON | 1.28 | 69% | January 1, 2016 | 74% |
46 | 45 | Utah | 1.27 | 69% | December 1, 2015 | 71% |
47 | 48 | Virginia | 1.24 | 67% | April 1, 2015 | 63% |
48 | 43 | West Virginia | 1.22 | 66% | November 1, 2015 | 74% |
49 | 49 | Arkansas | 1.06 | 57% | July 1, 2015 | 58% |
50 | 50 | Indiana | 1.05 | 57% | January 1, 2016 | 57% |
51 | 51 | North Dakota | 0.89 | 48% | July 1, 2015 | 47% |
Notes: Starting with the 2008 study, when two or more states’ Index Rate values are the same, they are assigned the same ranking. The index rates reflect ad- justments for the characteristics of each individual state’s residual market. Rates vary by classification and insurer in each state. Actual cost to an employer can be adjusted by the employer’s experience rating, premium discount, retrospective rating, and dividends. Link to previous reports and summaries.
Employers can reduce their workers’ compensation rates through accident prevention, safety training, and by helping injured workers return to work quickly.