Step-downs reduce workers’ compensation payments to encourage return to work: are they effective?

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, are effective as a return to work incentive. Methods We aggregated administrative claims data from seven 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 0.86 percentage point (95% CI −1.45 to −0.27) reduction in the exit rate, with significant heterogeneity between jurisdictions (I 2=68%, p=0.003). Neither timing nor magnitude of step-downs was a significant moderator of effects. Within injury subgroups, only fractures had a significant combined effect (−0.84, 95% CI −1.61 to −0.07). Sensitivity analysis indicated potential effects within mental health and musculoskeletal conditions as well. Conclusions The results suggest some workers’ compensation recipients anticipate step-downs and exit the system early to avoid the reduction in income. However, the effects were small and suggest step-downs have marginal practical significance. We conclude that step-downs are generally ineffective as a return to work policy initiative. Postprint link: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/19012286


InTrOduCTIOn
Step-downs reduce the rate of income replacement paid to injured workers after they have been on benefits for a period of several months. They are found in a number of workers' compensation systems around the world, including several in Europe (Andorra, Croatia, Slovakia and Sweden), Africa (Ethiopia, Republic of Congo, São Tomé and Príncipe and Zimbabwe), Asia (Indonesia, Laos, Singapore and Taiwan), Central America (Belize and Panama), the Middle East (Kuwait, Oman and Qatar), South America (Ecuador) 1 and one American state (Ohio). 2 Unique among these is Australia, where each of its nine major workers' compensation systems implements step-downs. 3 Step-downs are promoted as an incentive for claimants to return to work. [4][5][6] However, there is little direct empirical evidence to support this claim 7 8 and that which exists is generally inconclusive. 6 9 It also contrasts with the original purpose of step-downs when introduced across Australia in the 1980s and 1990s, which was to reign in the rising cost of employers' insurance premiums. 7 Nevertheless, evidence that more generous benefits increase time off work indicates that an incentivising effect is plausible. 4 We test whether step-downs increase the rate at which claimants exit workers' compensation and moderating effects of their timing and magnitude. Building on evidence that effects of benefit generosity vary by injury, 10 we also tested effects in claims for fractures, mental health conditions, musculoskeletal conditions and other trauma subgroups.

MeTHOds
Study questions and analyses were preregistered with the Open Science Framework. 11 We reproduce the analytical approach here and note any deviations.

step-downs in Australia
Australia's six states, two territories and Commonwealth government have their own workers' compensation system for injured workers, which cover 94% of the workforce. 12 Each scheme is cause based, meaning benefits are contingent on attribution of the condition, whether an acute injury or gradual onset disease (collectively referred to as 'injury' in this paper), to employment. 13 There are considerable differences in overarching policy settings, including whether the scheme allows common law claims, is publicly or privately underwritten and generosity of benefits. 3 While each system employs step-downs, they vary in both timing and magnitude, as illustrated in table 1.
Most of these systems have wage replacement caps that set a nominal maximum on what claimants may earn, and a few have minimums. In Queensland, claimants with an industrial agreement, which is a certified specification of industrial matters between employees and employers, are initially compensated at the greater of 85% their Normal Weekly Earnings (NWE; based on individual preinjury earnings) or the industrial instrument, which at 26 weeks steps down to the greater of 75% NWE or 70% Queensland Ordinary Time Earnings (QOTE; based on state mean earnings). Claimants not under an industrial instrument are initially compensated at the greater of 85% NWE or 80% QOTE and step down to the greater of 75% NWE or 70% QOTE. In the Northern Territory, step-downs are the greater of: (1) 75% of weekly earnings up to a maximum nominal cap or (2) the lesser of a flat rate plus additional income for each dependent or 90% of NWE. In Western Australia, claimants with an industrial agreement are not subject to step-downs and are compensated at 100% of their regular earnings throughout the life of the claim. However, overtime, bonuses and allowances are compensated up to 13 weeks but not afterwards, 14 meaning workers who rely on these extra sources of income are effectively subject to step-downs, though of varying magnitudes.
Step-down rates are higher in Tasmania and Comcare (the Commonwealth system) if the claimant is back at work in some form of partial capacity. 4 14 In these cases, the magnitude of initial and step-down compensation rates vary, though timings remained the same.
In Victoria and, to a lesser extent, New South Wales, claimants from unionised industries often have industrial awards and enterprise agreements that top up payments and can make up any gaps between preinjury earnings compensation. 7 8 We were unable to account for these arrangements nor determine what proportion of the population was affected by them.
data Data were derived from the National Data Set for Compensationbased Statistics, an amalgamation of case-level administrative claims data from each system that is compiled by Safe Work Australia. 15 The preregistered inclusion criterion restricted eligibility to claims lodged since either July 2009 or the most recent change to step-down arrangements, whichever is latest, up to June 2015. For instance, in July 2011, Tasmania altered step-down arrangements via legislative amendment. Only claims lodged afterwards were included in analyses. Post hoc, we added several other exclusions: ► Claims affected by minimum and maximum caps for weekly payments ► Claims lodged after June 2014 in South Australia to allow a 1-year buffer with the change in step-down arrangements implemented in July 2015. ► Claims exempted from New South Wales' 2012 legislative amendments, including several occupations (police, paramedics, firefighters and coalmine workers) and dust diseases. 3 Our outcome-weekly scheme exit rate-was determined using cumulative compensated time off work. While scheme exit does not necessarily entail return to work, and cumulative compensated time off work underestimates the total actual duration, it is nevertheless considered the most accurate measure of time off work when using administrative data. 16 Several jurisdictions including Victoria and South Australia determine the application of step-downs by counting any calendar week in which there was compensated time loss as a full week, 6 17 18 whereas Comcare uses cumulative compensated time off work. 4 In the Victorian and South Australian systems, this means that for some claims, step-downs applied earlier than specified in our analyses.

Analysis
We calculated scheme exit rates by dividing the number of claims exiting the system each week by those in it at the start of that week. Injury subgroups included fractures, mental health conditions, musculoskeletal conditions and other trauma. Our preregistered categorisation separated back and neck from other musculoskeletal conditions, though we have since decided to keep them together as a better conceptual fit. Neurological conditions and all other conditions were excluded due to low numbers. Data were left-censored at 4 weeks to exclude residual effects of employer excess, which are the postinjury periods for which employers are responsible for compensation payments. Anecdotal reports suggest claims are less likely to persist only a day or two beyond the employer excess period, tending either to resolve before the employer excess period ends or to persist for a few days beyond that. In Australia, the longest employer excess periods are 10 working days/2 weeks in Victoria/South Australia. 3 We determined a priori that 4 weeks, while arbitrary, would be sufficient to remove any confounding due to this effect. Exit rates were calculated up to 2 years or 104 weeks.
Effects were evaluated with a regression discontinuity design, a powerful quasiexperimental approach that compares outcomes on either side of an arbitrary cut-off. When individuals are unable to control which side of the cut-off they are on, regression discontinuity simulates a randomised control trial. 19 20 In this study, the assumption was inverted in that we evaluated whether claimants crossed this threshold. This means we cannot treat individuals on either side of the step-down cut-off as exposed or control groups and must interpret the results more cautiously. 21 We incorporated parametric polynomial estimators to account for non-linear patterns in exit rates, testing up to 10 polynomial terms with separate or same slopes, erring on the side of overfitting, 20 and selected best-fit models based on the Akaike Information Criterion. 19 Initially, we tested only separate slopes, but in several cases the fitted lines noticeably diverged from data points near the step-down cut-off. Testing same-slope models as well addressed these issues.
Results are reported as the percentage point change to the exit rate. Coefficients and SEs were combined into random effects meta-analyses to determine combined effects and the proportion of variance attributable to heterogeneity. We tested the moderating effect of step-down timing and magnitudes using meta-regressions.
Exit rates within a few subgroups became unstable as the number of claims in the system diminished over time. To account for this, we excluded data points where the number of remaining claimants for the week was <500 and did not conduct analyses where there were <20 aggregated data points after the stepdown. To illustrate the issue, data points in regression discontinuity plots are coloured black where included and grey where excluded. These exclusions were an ad hoc approach to an analytical problem that only became apparent as we examined the full dataset. As a result, neither Tasmania nor the Australian Capital Territory had sufficient data and were thus excluded from analyses.

resulTs
Data counts with crosstabulations for jurisdiction and injury type are summarised in table 2. In total, there were n=292 060 claim records in this study, the majority of which were musculoskeletal (n=176 297, 60%). The findings were first presented at the Actuaries Institute Injury and Disability Schemes Seminar in Canberra on 11 November 2019.

step-down impact on scheme exit rates
Across jurisdictions, the combined effect of step-downs on exit rates was a reduction of 0.86-percentage points (95% CI −1.45 to −0.27). A significant, moderate proportion of the variance in effects was attributable to heterogeneity between jurisdictions (I 2 =68%, p=0.003).
Within individual schemes, all significant effects were negative. Three of four significant effects were observed in jurisdictions with the earliest step-downs, occurring at 13 weeks: New South Wales (−1.65 to -3.25 to −0.06), Western Australia (−1.65 to -3.07 to −0.23) and South Australia (−2.24 to -3.38 to −1.10). Victoria also had a 13-week step-down, though the effect was non-significant (0.03, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.95). The only significant effect outside of 13 weeks was in Comcare, where step-downs occur at 45 weeks (−1.29 to -2.25 to −0.34). However, meta-regressions found that neither the timing (0.01, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.09) nor magnitudes (0.02, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.17) of step-downs significantly moderated the effect on exit rates.
Results are summarised in figure 1, and regression discontinuities are plotted in figure 2.

sensitivity analysis: confounding from competing incentives
We identified potential confounding from competing scheme incentives such as 10% insurance premiums discounts in New South Wales for employers who return claimants to work within 13 weeks 33 and bonuses for claims agents in Victoria who keep the rate of claims reaching 13 weeks low. 34 Other such incentives may exist, though consultation with scheme representatives indicated this information is often confidential as a private arrangement between insurers and employers.
We conducted sensitivity analyses on claimants unaffected by step-downs, which were identified based on preinjury wages and maximum and minimum wage replacement caps. Significant changes among these claims would be evidence of confounding. Only three jurisdictions (Victoria, Queensland and Western Australia) had sufficient data for this analysis. Effects were nonsignificant individually and combined (0.16, 95% CI -0.50 to 0.82). These results are summarised in online supplementary figure 1.

step-down impact by injury type
Combined effects were significant only among fracture claims (−0.84 to -1.61 to −0.07). Heterogeneity between sites was non-significant (I 2 =25%, p=0.087). Meta-analyses by injury type are summarised in figure 3, and regression discontinuity plots are presented in online supplementary figures 2-5.

sensitivity analysis: step-down impact by injury type
While combined effects were non-significant in mental health, musculoskeletal and other trauma claims, magnitudes were similar across all injury types (−0.50 to −1.45) with considerable overlap in confidence intervals. There were also indications that a single jurisdiction was responsible for attenuation to non-significance in some injuries, such as the lone positive effect among musculoskeletal conditions in the Northern Territory (1.00, 05% CI 0.04 to 1.96). We conducted 'leave one out' sensitivity analyses, 25

Interpretations of step-down effects on scheme exit rates
The local effect of step-downs on scheme exit rates was negative. The first potential explanation is that step-downs reduce the likelihood of return to work. This seems implausible given its lack of theoretical coherence and evidence that greater benefit generosity is positively associated with claim duration. 10 35 The second interpretation is that step-downs have an anticipatory effect, where claimants leave the compensation system early to avoid reductions in income. As evidence for this interpretation, regression discontinuity plots suggest that where effects were statistically significant, scheme exit rates increased in the week prior to step-down.
An alternative explanation posits that we mis-specified stepdowns as occurring earlier than they actually do. This would be the result of our use of cumulative determinations of when stepdowns apply contrary to jurisdictions that use calendar determinations, leading to discrepancies. For instance, in Victoria and South Australia, a claimant who works 1 day in a 5-day workweek would be subjected to a step-down after 13 weeks. In our dataset, this would correspond to 13 days or 2.6 weeks of compensated time off work, and we would not count them as being affected by step-downs. However, we have identified several reasons to reject these discrepancies as the driver of the negative effect. For one, there were significant anticipatory effects in Comcare, where step-downs are determined by cumulative compensated time off work, 4 as in our determination. For another, divergent estimates would be attributable to failed return to work attempts and graduated/partial working arrangements. Such claimants have demonstrated positive action to return to work, and financial incentives may not provide a sufficient motivation to achieve sustained return to work. Additionally, claimants with graduated/ partial working arrangements are less affected by step-downs since only the compensated portion of their wages are reduced. In Comcare, step-downs magnitudes decrease for claimants with partial working arrangements. 4 We would also expect such exits Workplace Figure 2 regression discontinuity plots illustrating impact of step-downs on exit rates by jurisdiction. grey datapoints indicate excluded data (<500 denominator cases).
to be more evenly distributed prior to step-downs. Instead, as noted above RDD plots suggest, they are clustered in the week prior to step-down in a manner that deviates from the secular trend. This suggests these claimants are maximising payments under the higher initial rate of compensation.
Our analytical approach-the regression discontinuity designcan only test local effects, that is, at the cut-off. Evidence that greater benefit generosity increases time off work 10 35 suggests step-downs may still have longer term effects, even where there are no local effects. Plotted exit rate patterns generally indicate continuing logarithmic decay, particularly where local effects were non-significant. While this does not rule out longer term effects, it suggests they are at most relatively small.

Heterogeneity of effects and potential causes
A moderate proportion of the variance in effects was attributable to heterogeneity. While neither the timing nor magnitude of step-downs were a significant moderator, there were only eight data points for the meta-regression, limiting statistical power. These factors may yet explain some of the differences in effect. For instance, most significant effects were observed among stepdowns occurring at 13 weeks, the earliest timing. This aligns with employer and policymaker opinion that delaying stepdowns diminishes their effectiveness. 4 5 However, the 45-week Comcare step-down, the latest tested in this study, also had a significant effect. This suggests unmeasured factors such as the presence of organised unions, who can warn claimants about impending step-downs, may modify step-down effects, regardless of timing.

effects by type of injury
There were significant combined effects in fracture claims and more tenuous evidence for effects in mental health and musculoskeletal condition claims. Fractures are generally considered less responsive to benefit generosity since they are more visible and easier to diagnose 35 with less variability in recovery time. 36 In other words, there is less discretionary time off work that may be influenced by benefits. Though contrary to expectations, the findings are not unprecedented. We previously found time off work among fracture claims sharply increased after Victoria raised the maximum wage replacement cap from 150% to 200% of average state earnings. 10 This may be explained by the subset of fracture claims exposed to step-downs. Online supplementary figure 2 illustrates that unlike other injuries, fracture exit rates peak around 2 months postclaim, possibly reflecting the natural course of recovery. 36 Claims exceeding this peak will be more complex on average and may be more responsive to benefit generosity. 37 Mental health conditions are less visible and harder to diagnose, characteristics thought to increase sensitivity to benefit generosity. To our knowledge, our previous work is the only empirical investigation of how such claims respond to rate of compensation, though we found no evidence of an effect. 10 However, the previous study examined the effect of initial rates of compensation, while here we measure a change in that rate. The psychological vulnerability of mental health claimants may mean the act of cutting benefits has a greater effect on scheme exit than variations in what they are paid from the start.
Musculoskeletal conditions are similarly less visible and harder to diagnose, with a substantial body of literature demonstrating sensitivity to benefit generosity. 35 The findings for other trauma conditions were non-significant, though it would be premature to dismiss this as no effect given the combined point estimate was the largest in magnitude. Null results do not necessarily entail null effects.

statistical versus practical significance of findings
While the findings were statistically significant, practical significance is less clear. For one, effects were fairly small. At the system level, the largest effect was −2.24 in South Australia. At the injury level, the biggest effect was −5.28 among mental health claims in South Australia, though this and the other larger injury effect estimates had wide CIs. Nevertheless, if these are reflective of the maximum potential impact of step-downs, they Workplace remain marginal, and if they are indeed anticipatory, the effects may be short lived, with scheme exit rates returning to normal shortly after step-downs apply.
Step-downs may have negative side effects on claimants. They have been linked to financial strain, 6 38 which could worsen outcomes or even delay scheme exit, particularly later in the process. 37 Furthermore, economically motivated return to work such as that driven by compensation benefits can increase the likelihood of reinjury. 39 Scheme exit does not necessarily entail return to work and may result in cost-shifting to other income replacement systems. 8 40 However, it seems unlikely that those who leave workers' compensation in response to step-downs would go elsewhere if the causal mechanism is financial pressure. Other government-provided incapacity benefits are less generous than workers' compensation. 3 40 Some claimants may retire as this option generally entails less financial stress. 41 However, these inferences assume an informed, calculated and rational economic response to financial incentives. The cut in benefits may induce a negative psychological reaction in some claimants and lead to a scheme exit that is neither return to work nor an alternative that improves financial well-being.
Meta-analyses suggested there was a moderate amount of heterogeneity between jurisdictions, which makes it difficult to make inferences about generalisability. However, the effects varied from small to approximately null, with a positive effect in a single subgroup (musculoskeletal conditions in the Northern Territory). The findings may be applicable to similarly causebased, devolved workers' compensation systems in developed economies like Canada and the USA, or other disability-based systems in developed countries, though it is unclear what the effects may be in underdeveloped settings.

strengths and limitations
This study has several limitations, some we have already mentioned including discrepancies in determination of stepdowns and inconsistent application of step-downs for some claimants. Regression discontinuity designs assume populations around the cut-off are unable to manipulate what condition they are exposed to. 19 Our study inverted this assumption, since claimants were reacting to the step-down cut-off rather than being allocated by it to separate conditions. The theoretical implications are unclear, though it may provide greater flexibility in interpretation. Rather than simulating a randomised controlled trial as is the case when regression discontinuities meet certain assumptions, 20 we can interpret the findings more qualitatively. 21 Similar natural experiment designs like the interrupted time series also consider anticipatory effects. 42 However, this means we also lose some of the strength in making causal attributions that a simulated randomised controlled trial would provide.
This study also has several strengths. We applied a robust quasiexperimental approach, the regression discontinuity design, to national workers' compensation data with populationlevel coverage. There were sufficient data to investigate impact by jurisdiction and most injury subgroups, and meta-analysis increased precision of estimates and provided evidence that effects varied by jurisdiction. Sensitivity analyses provided evidence that effects were not attributable to co-occurring incentives that may have confounded results.

COnClusIOns
The findings suggest that step-downs have an anticipatory effect, leading some workers' compensation recipients to leave the system early in anticipation of a reduction in income. However, the effects are small and probably short lived.
Step-downs may still reduce costs to workers' compensation systems, which is a legitimate policy goal. However, our findings suggest step-downs have marginal practical significance and are generally ineffective as a return-to-work policy initiative.
Correction notice This article has been corrected since it published online to reflect the correct link to the datat in Data availability statement.