Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Committee debates future of second-injury fund amid legal and administrative costs
Loading...
Summary
Lawmakers weighed the purpose, costs and administrative burden of the workers' compensation "second injury" fund, hearing that 22 states have sunset similar programs and that administrative hearings have increased following recent court decisions.
The Finance - Division I committee heard extensive testimony about the state—s special fund for second injuries, a workers' compensation reimbursement mechanism that reimburses insurance carriers for certain costs when a claim meets statutory eligibility criteria.
A department witness described the fund—s mechanics: carriers notify the fund within 100 weeks of an injury, submit an eligibility application, and—if the claim meets the statutory criteria and a $10,000 deductible—may receive reimbursement of 50% to 100% of eligible indemnity and medical expenses. The fund is financed by an assessment on carriers tied to prior-year claim costs plus a 15% administrative modifier.
Witnesses told the committee the fund has fluctuated in balance, recently ranging from about $16 million to $22 million depending on prior-year claims. Committee members asked whether the fund raises or lowers insurance rates; department staff said the program's costs are assessed to insurance carriers and argued its design is roughly revenue neutral to the industry apart from the 15% administrative charge. The department said administrative effort is substantial: one full-time staff person works exclusively on the program, with several others reviewing applications, for a total of about five staff involved in approvals and oversight.
Members noted national trends: the witness said 22 states have sunset similar programs and three states never enacted them. The committee also discussed policy rationales for the fund—s original purpose—encouraging employers to hire or retain workers with preexisting conditions—and whether that policy remains necessary in an era governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Several legislators expressed skepticism about continuing the program, calling parts "busy work" and noting the administrative burden and legal exposure following a recent Supreme Court decision that the department said has increased hearing activity and appeals. The department said it did not include a new sunset in this version of House Bill 2 after prior opposition, but asked the committee to address duplicative hearing procedures by adjusting statutory hearing processes in the bill.
The committee did not adopt a sunset provision during the hearing and did not make a final decision on long-term changes to the fund; members suggested any larger policy change would be a separate bill for full legislative consideration.
