On a biennial basis, the Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services produces a workers’ compensation premium rate summary of all states. The 2016 Oregon Report was published in October 2016. It essentially ranks states from the highest premium to the lowest. California is the highest (#1) and North Dakota is the lowest (#51).
The workers’ compensation insurance industry has argued that physician dispensing of medication is a major cost driver and should be regulated or abolished. The 2016 Oregon Report does not support this claim.
According to the National Council of Compensation Insurers (NCCI), the states with the highest level of physician dispensing include Florida, Georgia and Maryland. According to the Oregon report, Georgia is #27 and its premiums are below the median of all states; Florida is # 33 and Maryland is number # 38 and their premiums are substantially below the median (90% and 82% of median respectively).
The principal cost drivers in workers’ compensation are not physician dispensed medications. Indeed, data from the Workers Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) indicates that physicians who dispense medications from their offices give out fewer pills per claim than doctors who write prescriptions to be filled at a pharmacy. Dispensing doctors more carefully monitor patient recovery and are a positive force in the system.
The Report’s state by state ranking appears below:
Table 2. Workers’ compensation premium rate ranking

2016 Ranking	2014 Ranking	State	Index Rate	Percent of study median	Effective Date	Percent of 2014 study median
1	1	California	3.24	176%	January 1, 2016	188%
2	3	New Jersey	2.92	158%	January 1, 2016	152%
3	4	New York	2.83	154%	October 1, 2015	148%
5	2	Connecticut	2.74	149%	January 1, 2016	155%
5	5	Alaska	2.74	149%	January 1, 2016	145%
6	9	Delaware	2.32	126%	December 1, 2015	125%
8	6	Oklahoma	2.23	121%	January 1, 2016	137%
8	7	Illinois	2.23	121%	January 1, 2015	127%
9	20	Rhode Island	2.20	119%	August 1, 2014	107%
10	10	Louisiana	2.11	115%	January 1, 2016	120%
11	11	Montana	2.10	114%	July 1, 2015	119%
12	23	Wisconsin	2.06	112%	October 1, 2015	104%
14	8	Vermont	2.02	110%	April 1, 2015	125%
14	13	Maine	2.02	110%	April 1, 2015	116%
15	17	Washington	1.97	107%	January 1, 2016	108%
17	27	Hawaii	1.96	107%	January 1, 2016	100%
17	12	New Hampshire	1.96	106%	January 1, 2016	118%
18	17	South Carolina	1.94	105%	September 1, 2015	108%
20	21	Missouri	1.92	104%	January 1, 2016	107%
20	20	New Mexico	1.92	104%	January 1, 2016	108%
22	20	Minnesota	1.91	104%	January 1, 2016	107%
22	27	North Carolina	1.91	103%	April 1, 2015	100%
23	31	Wyoming	1.87	101%	January 1, 2016	95%
24	24	Iowa	1.86	101%	January 1, 2016	101%
25	29	Alabama	1.85	100%	March 1, 2015	97%
26	17	Pennsylvania	1.84	100%	April 1, 2015	108%
27	32	Georgia	1.80	98%	March 1, 2015	95%
28	14	Idaho	1.79	97%	January 1, 2016	109%
29	38	Mississippi	1.70	92%	March 1, 2015	85%
30	22	Tennessee	1.68	91%	March 1, 2015	105%
32	30	Nebraska	1.67	91%	February 1, 2015	96%
32	25	South Dakota	1.67	91%	July 1, 2015	100%
33	28	Florida	1.66	90%	January 1, 2016	98%
34	34	Michigan	1.57	85%	January 1, 2015	91%
35	41	Colorado	1.56	84%	January 1, 2016	81%
36	40	Kentucky	1.52	82%	October 1, 2015	82%
38	37	Arizona	1.50	82%	January 1, 2016	86%
38	35	Maryland	1.50	82%	January 1, 2016	88%
40	36	Texas	1.45	79%	July 1, 2015	87%
40	33	Ohio	1.45	79%	July 1, 2015	94%
41	39	Kansas	1.41	77%	January 1, 2016	83%
42	45	District of Columbia	1.37	74%	November 1, 2015	70%
43	46	Nevada	1.31	71%	March 1, 2015	68%
44	48	Massachusetts	1.29	70%	April 1, 2014	63%
45	43	OREGON	1.28	69%	January 1, 2016	74%
46	45	Utah	1.27	69%	December 1, 2015	71%
47	48	Virginia	1.24	67%	April 1, 2015	63%
48	43	West Virginia	1.22	66%	November 1, 2015	74%
49	49	Arkansas	1.06	57%	July 1, 2015	58%
50	50	Indiana	1.05	57%	January 1, 2016	57%
51	51	North Dakota	0.89	48%	July 1, 2015	47%

Notes: Starting with the 2008 study, when two or more states’ Index Rate values are the same, they are assigned the same ranking. The index rates reflect ad- justments for the characteristics of each individual state’s residual market. Rates vary by classification and insurer in each state. Actual cost to an employer can be adjusted by the employer’s experience rating, premium discount, retrospective rating, and dividends. Link to previous reports and summaries.
Employers can reduce their workers’ compensation rates through accident prevention, safety training, and by helping injured workers return to work quickly.