Comparative performance information
Comcare, and the premium paying agencies it covers, are subject to a range of comparative performance measures. The two major sets of indicators are
- Commission indicators prepared for the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) by Comcare, premium paying agencies, licensees and the Australian Defence Force
- the Comparative Performance Monitoring (CPM) project which compares all Australian jurisdictions in key areas relating to OHS and workers’ compensation.
Detailed information on the Commission indicators is set out below. Unfortunately the CPM was not released before publication of this annual report and therefore data from that project is not available for inclusion in this report.
Performance against ten-year targets
This section outlines performance against the targets described in the Strategic Initiatives section of the report.
There are three years remaining before the premium paying agencies have to achieve the first milestone against the National OHS Strategy’s target of at least a 20% reduction in the incidence of workplace injury. Notably, the premium paying agencies have already achieved a 20% reduction in the two years since the target was introduced. The premium paying agencies have also achieved the first milestone against the national target of at least a 10% reduction in the incidence of work-related fatalities (as measured by the incidence of death claims) by 30 June 2007. The incidence of death claims has fallen from 1.2 per 100,000 full-time equivalent employees during 2001 – 02 to no death claims during 2003 – 04 (excluding disease and commuting claims) for the premium paying agencies.
Some progress has also been achieved against the four targets adopted by Comcare. There were no work-related death claims (excluding disease and commuting) among the premium paying agencies during 2003 – 04. While the premium paying agencies have achieved good progress against the national target of a reduction in workplace injury, considerable improvement is required before they achieve the Commission’s target of a 40% reduction in the incidence of workplace injury, disease and commuting by 30 June 2012. The difference in performance reflects, in part, the increase in claims for psychological injuries (which are categorised as diseases) within the premium paying agencies. In line with this trend, the total number of weeks of incapacity has also increased since the 2001 – 02 base year. On the other hand, the average number of weeks taken before rehabilitation intervention is initiated has reduced by 14% since 2001 – 02.
Performance against Commission indicators and annual targets
In additional to the national targets, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) establishes key performance indicators to measure the scheme’s performance in the areas of prevention, claims management, rehabilitation and scheme administration. The Commission sets annual targets and benchmarks for these performance indicators and it periodically monitors the performance of premium paying agencies, Comcare, licensees and other determining authorities against these.
Performance is reported against the four sets of Commission performance indicators as follows
- ' P’ indicators—report performance of premium paying agencies against the Commission’s prevention indicators and targets
- ' C’ indicators —report Comcare’s performance against the Commission’s claims management indicators and targets
- ' R’ indicators— report performance of premium paying agencies against the Commission’s return to work indicators and targets
- ' SA’ indicators—report performance of the scheme against benchmarks established by the Commission.
Prevention (‘P’) indicators
Comcare works in partnership with premium paying agencies to prevent workplace injuries. The performance of premium paying agencies is reported against the Commission’s prevention indicators and performance is measured against annual targets. The targets established by the Commission are in line with the extended National OHS Strategy targets.
As the premium paying agencies had a relatively low incapacity incidence rate in the base year (2001 – 02) when the target setting began, achieving further reductions has been and will continue to be challenging. Comcare has put in place a range of strategies, as discussed throughout this report, to assist premium paying agencies achieve these targets. Despite these strategies, there was an overall slight deterioration in performance against the prevention targets during 2003 – 04 (see table 14 of this report).
Claims management (‘C’) indicators
Comcare’s claims management performance is reported against the Commission’s key claims management indicators, and performance is measured against annual targets. These indicators measure key stages involved in managing claims for workers’ compensation.
While the claims management indicators reflect Comcare’s performance, the average time taken to determine new claims from date of injury (C3) includes the time taken by both employees and employers to submit workers’ compensation claims. Comcare is actively working with agencies and employees to reduce the time taken to submit claims to Comcare. A major focus is earlier reporting of injuries and a reduction in the time taken to get a claim form to Comcare.
During 2003 – 04, Comcare’s performance against the claims management indicators was generally in-line with the targets set, with the exception of the affirmation rate of reviewable decisions (C4). The majority of reviewable decisions that were varied at the reconsideration level came about due to the supply of new evidence at the review stage which was not available to the original decision maker.
Return to work (‘R’) indicators
The performance of premium paying agencies is reported against the Commission’s prevention indicators and measured against annual targets. Return to work indicators measure the number of claims with 10 or more days incapacity that have formal return to work plans in place, and the success of those plans. Performance against these indicators shows some scope for improvement. Comcare wrote to key agencies that were underperforming in this area, highlighting the need to improve early intervention. The implementation of strategies to deliver return to work results continues to be a major focus within Whole of Agency projects undertaken by Comcare and key agencies.
Scheme administration (‘SA’) indicators
These indicators measure a range of issues in the administration of the workers’ compensation scheme. Unlike other indicators, the Commission sets benchmarks rather than targets for measuring performance by determining authorities including Comcare. Performance is generally satisfactory. There have been increases in costs for key legal and medical services, for insurance, and a range of other administrative services which have affected performance.
The SRCC Annual Report for 2003 – 04 includes a report by licensees and determining authorities (including Comcare) on performance against these measures. The SRCC Annual Report also includes information on the 15 largest premium paying agencies’ performance against a selection of these measures.
The following table provides more detail on the performance of premium paying agencies and Comcare against the Commission performance indicators and targets for 2003 – 04.
Table 14: Performance against Commission indicators
|
Commission indicator |
2002–03 |
2003–04 |
Target 2003–04 |
|
P1.5 — Incidence of claims resulting in 5 or more days of incapacity |
14.7 |
14.8 |
12.7 |
|
P1.6 — Incidence of claims resulting in 30 or more days of incapacity |
6.4 |
7.1 |
5.6 |
|
P1.7 — Incidence of claims resulting in 60 or more days of incapacity |
4.2 |
5.1 |
3.8 |
|
P3 — Incidence of death claims |
9.7* |
5.7 |
Zero |
|
P4 —Frequency of lost time claims per 1,000,000 hours worked |
11.9 |
11.6 |
10.8 |
|
C1 – Average time taken in calendar days to determine new claims (from date of receipt) |
17 |
18 |
18 |
|
C2 — Percentage of new claims determined |
94% |
90% |
91% |
|
C3 – Average time taken in calendar days to determine new claims (from date of injury) |
82 |
81 |
80 |
|
C4 — Affirmation rate of reviewable decisions |
62% |
56% |
70% |
|
C5 – Average time taken to decide reconsideration requests (from date of receipt) |
42 |
37 |
40 |
|
R1 — Percentage of claims with 10 or more days incapacity with a RTW plan |
45% |
53% |
60% |
|
R2 – Quality of RTW, percentage achieving RTW on case closure |
80% |
81% |
80% |
Note RTW means ‘return to work’
* Re-calculated to incidence per 100,000 FTE (reported in 2002 – 2003 report as incidence per 1,000 FTE)
Table 15: Performance against Commission indicators
|
Commission indicator |
2002–03 |
2003–04 |
Benchmark 2003–04 |
|
SA1 – Percentage of scheme expenditure paid to claimants |
58% |
57% |
60% |
|
SA2 – Administrative cost per claim |
$1,797 |
$1,754 |
$1,500 |
|
SA3 – Outstanding liability |
$1,393m |
$1,427m |
n/a |
|
SA4 – Premium Rate – Australian Government |
1.43% (2003–04) |
1.67% (2004–05) |
n/a |
|
SA4 – Premium Rate – ACT Government |
3.13% (2003–04) |
3.07% (2004–05) |
n/a |
n/a – not applicable as no benchmarks were set by the Commission
While these indicators measure only a subset of activities they are key indicators of performance. They suggest a need for improvement across all prevention, compensation and return to work activities. To this end Comcare has been developing and implementing a range of strategies to improve its own performance and the performance of premium paying agencies. Some of these strategies were outlined in last year’s annual report, and are outlined more fully in the Strategic Initiatives section of this report. In many cases, the strategies are designed to bring about cultural and attitudinal change as well as changes to systems and procedures. For this reason it is expected that it will take some time before a turn around in performance is achieved.
Agency premium outcomes
Publication of premium rates
The premium rate that Comcare sets for each agency responds to the agency’s claim frequency and average claim cost as well as to overall claim trends and the total amount that Comcare needs to collect from all agencies to cover the cost of work related illness and injury.
Therefore, the rate for each agency provides some indication of the agency’s effectiveness in preventing injuries and in helping employees to return to work after injuries.
Comcare and the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (the Commission) consider that publication of agencies’ premium rates over a number of years should contribute to increasing leadership accountability in prevention and injury management.
The following table shows premium rates for agencies that had more than one hundred employees in 2004 – 05 and in the previous three years. Agencies with fewer employees are not shown because premium rates for small agencies respond more slowly to changes in the agencies’ claim performance than do premium rates for larger agencies. The 2004 – 05 rate is an initial rate for 2004 – 05, whereas the rates shown for 2001 – 02, 2002 – 03 and 2003 – 04 are revised rates. The initial rate for 2004 – 05 takes into account the early development of claims for injuries suffered in 2003 – 04. It will be revised in 2005 when more information is available on those injuries.
The rates for 2004 – 05 have been ranked by rate quartile with the fourth quartile representing the highest premium rates.
Caution is needed in interpreting premium rates for agencies because
- as noted above, the premium rate of each agency responds to overall claim trends and to the total amount that Comcare needs to collect, as well as to each agency’s claim frequency and average claim cost. The response to the agency’s claim performance is faster for larger agencies than for smaller agencies.
- comparison between agencies may not be valid because employees in different agencies may face inherently different risks. For example, the nature of duties and type of workplace may be different.
- year-to-year agency comparisons for some agencies may also not be valid due to machinery of government changes where parts of agencies with higher or lower risk have moved between agencies.
Table 16: Agency premium performance
|
Agency premium rates if FTE >100 all past four years. Customer name |
2001–02 Revised rate |
2002–03 Revised rate |
2003–04 Revised rate |
2004–05 Pre-scribed rate |
2004–05 Rate quartile |
|
Aboriginal Hostels Ltd |
3.38% |
3.34% |
4.60% |
4.65% |
4 |
|
ACT Government (1) |
3.36% |
3.07% |
3.13% |
3.07% |
4 |
|
Administrative Appeals Tribunal |
0.37% |
0.46% |
0.77% |
0.68% |
1 |
|
Airservices Australia |
0.55% |
0.50% |
0.66% |
0.46% |
1 |
|
Army & Air Force Canteen Service |
2.13% |
2.66% |
3.47% |
3.36% |
4 |
|
Attorney-General’s Department |
1.44% |
1.30% |
1.91% |
1.99% |
4 |
|
Australian Broadcasting Authority |
0.84% |
0.89% |
1.33% |
1.21% |
3 |
|
Australian Broadcasting Corporation |
0.53% |
0.52% |
0.64% |
1.01% |
2 |
|
Australian Bureau of Statistics |
1.21% |
1.22% |
1.50% |
1.78% |
4 |
|
Australian Communications Authority |
0.53% |
0.90% |
1.18% |
1.46% |
3 |
|
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission |
0.62% |
0.59% |
0.81% |
0.87% |
2 |
|
Australian Crime Commission |
0.31% |
0.49% |
0.53% |
0.42% |
1 |
|
Australian Customs Service |
1.08% |
1.12% |
1.50% |
2.18% |
4 |
|
Australian Electoral Commission |
0.75% |
0.80% |
0.85% |
0.67% |
1 |
|
Australian Federal Police |
2.73% |
3.88% |
3.84% |
4.12% |
4 |
|
Australian Film, Television and Radio School |
1.35% |
1.40% |
2.05% |
1.62% |
3 |
|
Australian Fisheries Management Authority |
0.37% |
0.60% |
0.82% |
0.81% |
2 |
|
Australian Government Information Management Office |
0.53% |
0.80% |
1.04% |
2 |
|
|
Australian Government Solicitor |
0.60% |
0.57% |
0.78% |
0.73% |
1 |
|
Australian Greenhouse Office |
0.78% |
1.09% |
0.83% |
2 |
|
|
Australian Hearing Services |
0.45% |
0.58% |
0.66% |
0.76% |
1 |
|
Australian Industrial Registry |
0.38% |
0.68% |
0.85% |
0.92% |
2 |
|
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare |
0.52% |
0.86% |
1.12% |
1.06% |
2 |
|
Australian Institute of Marine Science |
0.46% |
0.53% |
0.79% |
0.67% |
1 |
|
Australian Maritime College |
1.18% |
1.42% |
1.90% |
1.95% |
4 |
|
Australian Maritime Safety Authority |
1.06% |
0.81% |
0.88% |
0.64% |
1 |
|
Australian National Audit Office |
0.65% |
0.64% |
0.90% |
1.05% |
2 |
|
Australian National Training Authority |
0.23% |
0.26% |
0.32% |
0.57% |
1 |
|
Agency premium rates if FTE >100 all past four years. Customer name |
2001–02 Revised rate |
2002–03 Revised rate |
2003–04 Revised rate |
2004–05 Pre-scribed rate |
2004–05 Rate quartile |
|
Australian National University |
0.71% |
0.68% |
0.87% |
1.30% |
3 |
|
Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation |
0.88% |
0.89% |
1.22% |
0.71% |
1 |
|
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority |
0.92% |
0.68% |
0.92% |
1.05% |
2 |
|
Australian Public Service Commission |
0.62% |
0.62% |
1.09% |
0.87% |
2 |
|
Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency |
0.39% |
0.46% |
0.64% |
0.84% |
2 |
|
Australian Securities and Investments Commission |
0.60% |
0.65% |
1.21% |
1.15% |
2 |
|
Australian Sports Commission |
0.81% |
0.81% |
1.09% |
1.31% |
3 |
|
Australian Taxation Office |
0.69% |
1.07% |
1.62% |
1.89% |
4 |
|
Australian Trade Commission |
0.21% |
0.33% |
0.55% |
0.47% |
1 |
|
Australian War Memorial |
1.03% |
1.13% |
1.58% |
1.40% |
3 |
|
Bureau of Meteorology |
0.64% |
0.74% |
1.01% |
0.96% |
2 |
|
Central Land Council |
0.79% |
0.71% |
0.91% |
0.86% |
2 |
|
Centrelink |
1.44% |
1.52% |
1.96% |
2.73% |
4 |
|
Civil Aviation Safety Authority |
0.59% |
0.72% |
0.81% |
1.22% |
3 |
|
Comcare |
1.22% |
1.47% |
2.00% |
1.91% |
4 |
|
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation |
0.61% |
0.59% |
0.75% |
0.74% |
1 |
|
Commonwealth Superannuation Administration |
0.52% |
0.54% |
0.87% |
1.26% |
3 |
|
Defence Housing Authority |
0.49% |
0.86% |
1.18% |
1.49% |
3 |
|
Department of Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry |
1.29% |
1.72% |
2.02% |
2.35% |
4 |
|
Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts |
1.59% |
1.07% |
1.39% |
1.54% |
3 |
|
Department of Defence |
1.06% |
0.95% |
1.11% |
1.20% |
2 |
|
Department of Education, Science and Training |
1.00% |
0.96% |
1.33% |
1.20% |
3 |
|
Department of Employment and Workplace Relations |
0.71% |
0.93% |
1.02% |
0.84% |
2 |
|
Department of Family and Community Services |
1.11% |
1.31% |
2.32% |
2.14% |
4 |
|
Agency premium rates if FTE >100 all past four years. Customer name |
2001–02 Revised rate |
2002–03 Revised rate |
2003–04 Revised rate |
2004–05 Pre-scribed rate |
2004–05 Rate quartile |
|
Department of Finance and Administration |
0.69% |
0.92% |
1.43% |
1.35% |
3 |
|
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade |
0.47% |
0.46% |
0.65% |
0.66% |
1 |
|
Department of Health and Ageing |
1.49% |
1.54% |
1.58% |
1.49% |
3 |
|
Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs |
0.78% |
1.18% |
1.67% |
1.77% |
4 |
|
Department of Industry, Tourism and Resources |
0.38% |
0.86% |
1.13% |
1.58% |
3 |
|
Department of Parliamentary Services |
1.80% |
1.75% |
4 |
||
|
Department of the Environment and Heritage |
1.39% |
1.38% |
1.64% |
1.43% |
3 |
|
Department of the House of Representatives |
1.25% |
1.02% |
1.34% |
0.87% |
2 |
|
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet |
0.56% |
0.70% |
1.07% |
0.70% |
1 |
|
Department of the Senate |
1.96% |
2.20% |
2.08% |
1.45% |
3 |
|
Department of the Treasury |
0.84% |
0.69% |
0.91% |
0.83% |
2 |
|
Department of Transport and Regional Services |
0.56% |
0.70% |
0.97% |
1.01% |
2 |
|
Department of Veterans’ Affairs |
1.33% |
1.38% |
1.61% |
1.49% |
3 |
|
Director of Public Prosecutions |
0.53% |
0.47% |
0.73% |
0.76% |
1 |
|
Family Court of Australia |
1.11% |
1.29% |
2.30% |
2.46% |
4 |
|
Federal Court of Australia |
1.18% |
1.21% |
1.57% |
1.40% |
3 |
|
Food Standards Australia New Zealand |
0.37% |
0.34% |
0.58% |
0.56% |
1 |
|
Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority |
0.41% |
0.49% |
0.66% |
0.60% |
1 |
|
Health Insurance Commission |
1.34% |
1.41% |
2.04% |
2.42% |
4 |
|
Health Services Australia Ltd |
0.71% |
0.93% |
0.99% |
1.04% |
2 |
|
Insolvency and Trustee Service Australia |
1.03% |
1.03% |
0.79% |
2 |
|
|
Medibank Private Ltd |
0.92% |
1.12% |
1.16% |
1.23% |
3 |
|
Melbourne Symphony Orchestra Pty Ltd |
1.21% |
0.99% |
1.50% |
2.11% |
4 |
|
National Archives of Australia |
1.17% |
1.16% |
1.41% |
0.92% |
2 |
|
National Gallery of Australia |
1.22% |
1.54% |
1.92% |
1.87% |
4 |
|
National Library of Australia |
1.36% |
1.14% |
1.59% |
1.74% |
4 |
|
Agency premium rates if FTE >100 all past four years. Customer name |
2001–02 Revised rate |
2002–03 Revised rate |
2003–04 Revised rate |
2004–05 Pre-scribed rate |
2004–05 Rate quartile |
|
National Museum of Australia |
0.76% |
1.08% |
1.23% |
1.41% |
3 |
|
National Native Title Tribunal |
0.45% |
0.63% |
1.01% |
1.20% |
3 |
|
National Occupational Health and Safety Commission |
0.67% |
0.69% |
0.84% |
0.80% |
2 |
|
National Registration Authority for Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals |
0.57% |
0.51% |
0.92% |
0.78% |
1 |
|
Northern Land Council |
0.46% |
0.76% |
1.34% |
1.55% |
3 |
|
Note Printing Australia Ltd |
0.92% |
1.04% |
1.23% |
1.08% |
2 |
|
Productivity Commission |
0.39% |
0.37% |
0.50% |
0.43% |
1 |
|
Queensland Orchestras Pty Ltd |
2.34% |
3.29% |
5.74% |
5.93% |
4 |
|
Snowy Hydro Limited |
0.57% |
0.59% |
0.73% |
0.52% |
1 |
|
Special Broadcasting Service |
0.40% |
0.51% |
0.72% |
0.58% |
1 |
|
Sydney Symphony Orchestra Holdings Pty Ltd |
0.90% |
1.05% |
1.21% |
1.32% |
3 |
|
The Australia Council For The Arts |
0.43% |
0.57% |
0.78% |
0.71% |
1 |
|
West Australian Symphony Orchestra Holdings Pty Ltd |
2.65% |
2.31% |
3.81% |
3.72% |
4 |
National Return to Work Monitor
Each year, Comcare participates in a national survey of return to work outcomes. The National Return to Work Monitor (the RTW Monitor) benchmarks rehabilitation outcomes and compares the performance of the premium paying agencies to all other jurisdictions in Australia and New Zealand.
The survey is conducted by an independent research company in May and November each year. The sample of employees is drawn from those employees who lodged a compensation claim seven to nine months previously and who have spent at least ten days away from the workplace on compensation. The results of the survey are used to target areas of rehabilitation management for improvement.
The 2003 – 04 RTW Monitor showed that of injured employees covered by the SRC Act
- 90% of employees achieved a return to work at some time following injury, compared to a national average of 87%
- 96% of employees who had returned to work, had returned to their original employer, compared to a national average of 84%
- 61% of employees reported they had a RTW plan developed compared to a national average of 45% – and these employees were more likely to be involved in the development of a RTW plan (89%) compared to the national average (80%)
- 53% of employees reported having contact with their insurer (i.e. Comcare) in the previous three months compared to the national average of 36%.
In addition, employees with a RTW plan were more likely to indicate that their rehabilitation provider, main supervisor or case manager helped them follow their RTW plan than the national average.
Table 17: Return to Work Monitor Results 2003 – 04
|
Premium paying agencies* (%) |
National average (%) |
|
|
Employees who had returned to work at some point since injury |
90 |
87 |
|
Employees who had returned to work – returned to their original employer |
96 |
84 |
|
Employees who were still working** |
79 |
78 |
|
RTW plan developed |
61 |
45 |
|
Employees involved in development of RTW plan |
89 |
80 |
|
Helped to follow RTW plan: rehabilitation provider |
32 |
18 |
|
Helped to follow RTW plan: main supervisor |
22 |
15 |
|
Helped to follow RTW plan: case manager |
17 |
8 |
* includes Australian and ACT Government
** Injured employees who had returned to work and were still working at the time of the interview
It should be noted that there has been some deterioration in performance against some indicators when compared with 2002 – 03 but these matters are being addressed through Comcare’s strategies.