Lately I’ve received a lot of questions about Vigilant’s perspective on Kept-On-Salary mandates. Here’s where we stand:
We oppose KOS Mandates
Our fundamental objection to KOS mandates is that they ALWAYS benefit a group retro program and its association sponsor, but do NOT ALWAYS best serve the individual member companies that are paying for it.
In essence, a KOS mandate shifts liability from the association and the retro program onto the participating companies of that program. It is easier to administer for the association, but is not necessarily best for the participating member companies or their injured workers. It also often negatively impacts the timeliness and assertiveness of claims management support early in the life of a claim, because the impact to the retro program is deferred until after 90/120/150 days.
A KOS mandate is a disincentive to retro programs to help companies make informed business decisions on a claim-by-claim basis, and in fact takes the decision out of employers’ hands. In short, it is a broad brush approach to a tool that requires precision. You can read more about KOS as a tool from my prior notes.
We equip and empower our members to make informed business decisions:
- As employer advocates, we help our members navigate this unique tool with precision, only utilizing it when it makes sense for them, not us.
- We don’t mandate KOS for any duration. Instead we equip and empower our member companies to make the right decision for their business and their people and then trust them to do so.
Specifically, we help companies understand the implications of KOS (real dollars out of their pockets) on future premiums (real dollars in their pockets) on a claim-by-claim basis. Used with precision, KOS can have a positive impact on an employer, its employees and its retro group.
If you have questions about KOS and its appropriate use, give me a call at 425-349-4477. I live and breathe these issues daily and have a passion to help.
