Case Studies
Workers’ Compensation Benchmarking
As a customer service, American Tescor examines the difference between Tescor Screened and unscreened applicants.
Since the Tescor Survey is only given to new hires, a built-in control group of existing, unscreened employees is automatically
available. The differences in claim frequency and severity rates between Tescor Screened workers and unscreened employees can be
readily calculated. These "within year" studies provide an objective comparison of the difference in compensation losses between
the two groups – even when multiple risk control strategies are implemented concurrently with Tescor screening.
For example, suppose a company decides to implement Tescor Screening, a new return-to-work program, and new safety incentives
all at the same time. How can the impact of the Tescor program be accurately measured when two other new programs are operating
concurrently? Simple. All employees (screened and unscreened) receive the benefit of the return-to-work and safety incentive programs.
The only difference is that some workers were Tescor Screened.
As almost all other risk control protocols apply to the entire workforce (new hires and existing employees), Tescor Screening provides
a unique opportunity to measure its effects on workers’ compensation losses since it only applies to new hires.
Over the past several years, American Tescor has completed over a dozen major workers’ compensation benchmarking studies. The results
of some of these studies are summarized below. The average 63% comp loss reduction shown in the table below represents the combined effects
of lower claim frequency and severity in Tescor Screened workers compared to unscreened employees working in the same type of jobs at the
same time.
Workers’ Comp Case Studies Prove Tescor Screening Enhances Earnings
| Study Period |
Industry |
Frequency Reduction |
Severity Reduction* |
Total Employees in Study |
Total Comp Loss Reduction Among Tescor Screened |
| 1996 |
Staffing |
56% |
40% |
32,158 |
74% |
| 1997-2000 |
Manufacturer |
71% |
36% |
8,486 |
82% |
| 1999 |
Staffing |
67% |
-7% |
50,710 |
64% |
| 2000 |
Staffing |
93% |
26% |
6,904 |
95% |
| 2002 |
Food Processor |
45% |
48% |
11,659 |
68% |
| 2002-2003 |
Insurance |
78% |
29% |
6,165 |
84% |
| 2003-2004 |
Hospitality |
49% |
50% |
33,345 |
74% |
| 2002-2004 |
Long-Term Care |
55% |
18% |
9,054 |
63% |
| 2004 |
Home Healthcare |
55% |
18% |
5,035 |
63% |
| 2003-2005 |
Staffing |
48% |
15% |
207,509 |
54% |
| 2005 |
Retail |
70% |
45% |
18,200 |
83% |
| 2005 |
Commercial Laundry |
56% |
14% |
10,596 |
59% |
| 2006 |
Construction |
47% |
38% |
4,864 |
67% |
| 2007 |
Long-Term Care |
59% |
81% |
1,605 |
92% |
| 2007 |
Long-Term Care |
41% |
16% |
9,558 |
50% |
| 2008 |
Hospitality |
54% |
59% |
4,161 |
81% |
| 2009 |
Rental Company |
72% |
38% |
8,650 |
82% |
| Total and Weighted Average |
- |
60% |
33% |
428,659 |
73% |
*The severity reduction is based on all claims, open and closed. When the analysis is based on closed claims, the severity reduction is significantly higher.
Behavioral Assessment Workers' Comp Benchmarking - (PDF)