Togetherness

What’s this country coming to?

Twice in the past few weeks compromise reared its seldom-seen head in discussion over local insurance issues. That’s right, compromise, as in comp, as in promise, as in company, as in pro.

There was the insurance lobbyist acknowledging that injured workers in New York might deserve better benefits. The setting was Albany, where the New York Assembly Labor Committee was reviewing a labor-backed measure that would increase the maximum weekly compensation benefit in steps until it is two-thirds of the state’s average weekly wage. It would be the first increase in the benefit since 1992.

The labor proposal would be costly. Industry experts believe premiums would have to go up by 25 percent to pay for it. For an insurance lobbyist, this is red meat. But at least one didn’t take the bait.

“We don’t necessarily oppose workers comp benefit increases—New York has gone without them for more than a decade,” said Gerald Zimmerman, assistant vice president for the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI). No threat of insurers and employers leaving the state. No blasting of labor. Just a calm recognition that maybe it’s time to look at benefits.

Zimmerman coupled this with a perfectly reasonable offer. If benefits in one area are going to be raised, why not seek to pay for them with reforms elsewhere? Even though the state’s weekly benefit levels are low, New York’s premiums are among the highest in the country due to the lack of a cap on permanent partial disability (PPD) benefits. PPD claims account for only 12 percent of claims, but 77 percent of the cost.
To help balance increased benefits, PCI recommends a durational cap on PPD and the adoption of objective medical protocols. In short, PCI adopted a compromise with something for employers and something for employees.

Then there was news on the medical malpractice front. Connecticut Gov. John G. Rowland, a strong supporter of caps on awards, agreed to back a $750,000 limit on non-economic damages in malpractice lawsuits, while also permitting judges to waive the cap in extreme cases. Rowland had previously insisted on a firm $250,000 cap. Speaker of the House Moira Lyons, a Democrat—Rowland is a Republican—responded in the same bipartisan spirit. “I think it’s certainly a concept that would be discussed,” Lyons said. “We don’t have cookie cutter cases. They’re all different.” That’s right, a Democrat said a Republican proposal was worth discussing, not just hollering over.

What’s this country coming to when special interests approach each other rather than scream at each other from extreme positions? When politicians vote for resolutions to problems over cash for their campaigns? When labor and business, trial lawyers and doctors, Republicans and Democrats compromise? What’s this country coming to? Maybe the country is coming together.