Why Did the Ex-Mod Go Up? Five Questions Lead to the Culprit

I have an affinity for detective and crime shows, and this year I’ve added The Mentalist to my list of favorites. The show features character Patrick Jane, who formerly posed as a psychic and now consults with the California Bureau of Investigation. In each episode, Jane reliably uses his superior powers of observation to have the “whodunnit” figured out from the beginning, even though we viewers have to watch the story unfold and wonder, along with the rest of the CBI force, if  the complicating factors and clues are leading us to the right culprit or not.

Discovering the drivers of change in a company's experience mod is an opportunity that helps you communicate expectations and keep the company focused on long term goals of improving safety and thus lowering its mod and workers' comp premiums.

With a company’s experience rating mod factor, what we want to discover is not WHOdunnit, but WHATdunnit: that is, what caused the mod to increase or decrease from one year to the next? We can be almost as slick and successful as Patrick Jane if we know the right things to observe and the right questions to ask.

Of course companies are more likely to be concerned by a mod increase, but they may also celebrate a decrease (and the broker, risk control expert, and/or safety consultant who helped them achieve such a decrease). Understanding the specific reasons that a company’s mod fluctuates from year to year is important because, as the adage goes, in understanding the past we also understand the future.

Here are 5 questions you can consider and answer, using mostly the summary numbers from 2 consecutive years of a company’s mod worksheets from the applicable bureau, to uncover the cause(s) for a mod increase or decrease from one year to the next. Read more »

The New – and Improved! – California Experience Rating Form

Starting a new mod in ModMaster? Select "NCCI" for any calculation using the NCCI or similar method, including California mods prior to the 2012 plan change. For California mods effective 1/1/2012 and later, be sure to select "CA," and note that you must use ModMaster 5.0.

In addition to recent formula changes for 2012 in the California experience rating plan, the WCIRB has also adopted a significantly new format for its experience rating worksheet. You’ll think I’m a geek (if you didn’t already) for admitting this, but I’m loving the new format. While of course I’m partial to the myriad ways we slice, dice and present mod data in ModMaster reports, I think the new bureau format takes a huge step forward in usability. Here are four reasons why.

1. Documentation. A sample of the new format is shown on this WCIRB web page. As you’ll see, each section is labeled with a nice bright number, and clicking on the number takes you to an explanation of that section. An updated explanation of the experience rating form and process also follows the employer’s worksheet itself, so you’ve got both hard copy and online resources to help you understand, clarify, or discuss any part of the report.

2. Layout. The WCIRB has abandoned the old format, which had all payroll and expected loss information followed by all actual loss information. Under the new format, the left side of the page is payroll and expected loss information, and the right side of the page is actual loss information. The data is further organized by policy period (in descending order), so it’s very easy to go down the page, look at the totals row for each period, and compare expected primary and excess totals on the left with actual primary and excess totals on the right. Before you even get to the footer information, if you keep seeing totals on the left being considerably less than totals on the right, well – you know there’s probably going to be an issue with the mod. Likewise, you can quickly see if worse experience is near the top of the report (and therefore more recent), or near the end of the report (and therefore likely to be aging out of the mod calculation next year).

An aside for those of you who also analyze NCCI mods: It’s notable that the new WCIRB format is somewhat similar to NCCI’s newest worksheet format, but in my opinion the WCIRB is more usable for “eyeballing” policy period trends because each totals line shows expected and actual totals. The left side of the NCCI report shows subject premium totals rather than expected loss totals by policy period.

3. The new footer. Here we get to the core of the reason the WCIRB made a change to the formula: they wanted it to be easier to talk about. The new formula is now well-labeled in two distinct parts: the credible primary loss and the credible excess loss. We no longer have to track a bunch of little superscripted letters from one box to another to follow the formula (although the little letters are still there, for those of you who may have grown fond of them.) It’s very easy to see how:

  • In the credible primary (left) section, expected and actual primary losses are being weighed by the credibility primary factor, and
  • In the credible excess (right) section, expected and actual excess losses are being weighed by the – you guessed it – credibility excess factor

As a reminder, both the credibility primary and the credibility excess factors increase with total expected losses. However, credibility excess is zero for lower levels of expected losses, and it increases at a slower rate than credibility primary. This means that both primary and excess losses are more significant (or credible) for larger companies than smaller ones, but excess losses in particular are more credible for larger companies (as measured by expected losses and, underlying that, payroll).

4. The loss-free rating. This was actually introduced in 2011, but it bears mentioning again. In the lower left of the footer, a “loss-free rating” number is shown. This is what we’ve been calling the “minimum mod” in ModMaster for many years. It’s the value the mod would be if NO actual losses had occurred in the experience period. The WCIRB documentation says this is a “hypothetical” rating. Perhaps I’m being too picky about semantics, but to me “hypothetical” suggests it’s an assumed but not achievable number. (If I tell my teenage son he can hypothetically make all A’s, is that as powerful as saying I know he can make all A’s?) It’s great to have this number on the report, but remember, companies are able to achieve perfect safety records and their minimum mod!

Kudos to the WCIRB on the implementation and documentation of these changes. For ModMaster users, note that similar terminology and appropriate calculation support is now available in ModMaster version 5.0, where California has become its own calculation type for mods effective 1/1/2012 and later.

What are your thoughts or questions about the new California worksheet format? Do you like it as much as I do, or are there any downsides I’ve overlooked?

- Kory Wells, WorkCompEdge Blog Editor

New Report Estimates Mod Change Due to 2013 Split Point Value

As you’ve probably heard by now, NCCI is changing the primary-excess split point value in the experience rating formula beginning in 2013. I’ve been hearing from many agents and brokers who are wisely eager to understand this change and discuss it with their clients. We’ve already published several resources on this topic, and now we’re excited to announce that a new feature is available in ModMaster 5.0 to help you turn this change into an opportunity.

The Mod Projection link will only appear on the Next Steps screen for mods with an effective date in 2012.

First of all, how to find the 2013 Mod Projection feature and report

In the new ModMaster 5.0, this feature is found on the sidebar of the “Next Steps” screen. It is only available for mods with an effective date in 2012. Once you click on the link, you’ll see on-screen a side-by-side comparison of the 2012 mod summary values (the mod, expected losses, actual losses, etc.) with the estimated values for the 2013 projection. From there, you can request the “2013 Mod Projection Report” which repeats the on-screen summary and adds a graph and detailed information to help you fully analyze the estimated impact of the new split point value on individual losses.

When you should use this feature

I recommend you take at least a quick look at this screen for every 2012 mod. Remember, according to NCCI data discussed further in this article, 36% of mods will see a shift of only plus or minus 2 points; another 38% will see a mod decrease from 2 to 5 points. Another 4% should expect to see an increase of 2 to 5 points. If your clients represent a typical distribution of industries and risks, 22% of them are likely to see what I see as a significant shift in their mod – that is, a mod that increases or decreases 5 points or more.

Based on the data and the client’s industry, I would then decide whether to print, analyze and discuss the 2013 projection with the client:

  • For some clients, a mod change of a few points may not be something you want to discuss at length. But in some industries, such as construction, an increase of only a point or two can be significant if it eliminates a company’s eligibility to bid on work.
  • For any client who is estimated to experience a significant increase in the mod, this is an opportunity to prepare them for possible bad news and to help them explore and recommit to the most appropriate loss control practices for their situation.
  • For any client who is estimated to experience a significant decrease in the mod, this is an opportunity to share some good news, but remember…
The split point change produces one opportunity that applies to nearly all clients 
As a result of the split point change,  the minimum mod in most cases will be dropping several points. This in turn will often drive up the controllable mod, thus producing a great opportunity for you to share your expertise, discuss loss control, and deliver recommended Broker Briefcase resources on safety, injury management, and more that are part of ModMaster 5.0.

Remember, the 2013 Mod Projection Report is an estimate

I want to emphasize that this feature is providing an ESTIMATE of the 2013 mod IF that mod were based on the exact same set of data that’s in the 2012 mod (which, of course, won’t be the case). What’s different is the split point (changed from $5,000 to $10,000) and the associated change to the discount ratios which NCCI estimates will be 50% higher. For these purposes, we are also assuming that the change will take effect for all states and the independent bureaus which use NCCI or similar rating methodology (excluding California), but most of the independent bureaus have not yet indicated their plans for this change.

As always, feel free to comment here or to email me at kory.wells@zywave.com with any questions.

- Kory Wells, WorkCompEdge Blog Editor

Further reading

NCCI Publishes FAQ on Split Point and Maximum Debit Mod Changes

How Will Mods Change Under New NCCI Plan Recommendations?

Login required for the following two resources:

All ModMaster users should have an AgencyFuel login – if you don’t, contact the Zywave Partner Service Center at support@zywave.com or 866.499.9283.

California Approves Experience Rating Changes Effective 1/1/2012

In conjunction with the January 1, 2012, pure premium rate filing, the California Insurance Commissioner has approved changes to the experience rating method as mentioned in this previous article on the WorkCompEdge blog. The November 4th announcement, Bulletin 2011-09, says in part:

Beginning January 1, 2012, “Primary Credibility” and “Excess Credibility” factors will be substituted for “B” and “W” values in the experience rating formula and there will be significant changes to the appearance of the experience rating form and the manner in which the experience and rating computation are shown. The intent of these changes is to help policyholders better understand the experience rating formula and the data used in experience rating. The use of “Primary Credibility” and “Excess Credibility” in lieu of “B and W” values will not significantly impact 2012 experience modifications.

I know that’s short, but let’s recap:

  • What’s not significant:  The impact on 2012 mods. Mods will not change appreciably because of this change. In most circles, this will be known as the good news.
  • What is significant: The appearance and how we communicate about the mod calculation. An eternal optimist, I’m loathe to call this bad news, so I’m officially labeling this as the opportunity. And it is an opportunity, as the whole point of this change is to make communicating about the mod easier.

Here’s the complete regulatory filing summary from WCIRB. Be sure not to miss the WCIRB Quick Reference Guide listed on that page, as it includes an example of how the mod worksheet will look with the new factors in use. Read more »

The New ModMaster Is Here

Queue the dramatic music and expectant drum roll: Today Zywave releases an all-new ModMaster version 5.0.

ModMaster 5.0 takes workers compensation data analytics to its highest level yet.

Some of you have been with this product since its beginning with Specific Software Solutions almost 20 years ago. You know how it’s changed over the years – from rating updates on disks (remember those?) to web-based updates; from the MS-DOS version to the Windows versions (2 of those); through bureau rule changes like the Experience Rating Adjustment,  California split formula change, and enough state exceptions to drive a certain programmer (which I was back then) nearly crazy.

You know the ModMaster team has always been responsive to rule changes and user suggestions – and you also know there have been a few requests that seemed to be perennially stuck on our enhancement list. With those requests especially in mind, I want to highlight a few of the changes in version 5.0 that I’m particularly excited the Zywave development team has accomplished. From conversations I’ve had with many of you over the years, I think you’re going to like that: Read more »

California 2012 Rate Filing Includes Proposed Experience Rating Plan Changes

If I didn’t know better, I’d say that the workers compensation bureaus are conspiring to keep those of us analyzing and communicating about mods very busy in 2012. In addition to the coming change in the NCCI split point, it seems likely that California’s bureau, the WCIRB, will be changing its experience rating calculation in 2012.

The intent of changes to the California experience rating formula is to make the formula easier to talk about. Brokers who are on top of this change will definitely catch clients' and prospects' attention.

Those of you who do business in that state will undoubtedly remember that California also made changes to their experience rating plan in 2010. For the newest change, let’s get to the best news first: the change affects how the formula looks and how brokers and employers will communicate about the mod, but WCIRB documents indicate that it shouldn’t change individual mods themselves.

The proposed changes are part of the 2012 pure premium rate and regulatory filing which the Insurance Commissioner should accept, reject, or modify by early November. California rate changes have historically occurred on 1/1 of most years. The WCIRB states in an August 22nd letter to the Insurance Commissioner that they anticipate having their systems ready for 1/1 implementation of the new formula, but could propose a three month delay if any unforeseen problems arise.

If you’ve been involved with workers compensation experience mods for very long, you’ve probably explained the formula, as we often do, by saying “it looks complex, but it’s basically a comparison of actual to expected losses.”

Well, the WCIRB says its now time for that formula to look not-so-complex.

To that end, this change does away with ballast and weighting values in favor of credibility primary and credibility excess factors:

  • Credibility primary factors (Cp) are used to weigh a risk’s actual primary losses, which are a measure of loss frequency. The larger a risk is (as measured by expected losses), the greater weight that is given to primary losses.
  • Credibility excess factors (Ce) are used to weigh a risk’s actual excess losses, which are a measure of loss severity. Again, the larger a risk, the greater the weight. Notably, very small risks have such little predictive value in this area that Ce will actually be zero.

So, the mod formula which currently looks like this:

X-Mod = {Ap + (W x Ae) + [(1 - W) x Ee + B} / (E + B)

where Ap = Actual primary losses; Ae = Actual excess losses; E = Expected losses; Ee = Expected excess losses; B = Ballast and W = Weight (note that this formula is expressed in a slightly more reduced form than what we show in ModMaster)

will now look like this:

X-Mod = {[(Ap x Cp) + (Ep x (1 - Cp))] + [(Ae x Ce) + (Ee x (1 - Ce))]} / E

where all of the terms have been defined above, except for Ep = Expected primary losses.

There now! Isn’t that easier?

Sorry, I couldn’t resist teasing a bit. Actually, it is easier, because everything in green in the formula above is considered the credible primary loss and everything in blue is considered the credible excess loss, reducing the basic formula to

X-Mod = (Credible Primary Loss + Credible Excess Loss) / E

And that really will be easier for brokers and employers to talk about – starting with this simple formula and then working into more detail as the situation warrants.

We continue to monitor the approval of this change in California and are working to accommodate it in ModMaster. We’ll definitely discuss this subject again as more details become available. In the meantime, let me know your comments and questions, as always!

- Kory Wells, WorkCompEdge Blog Editor

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.