REFORM: WORKERS COMP BILL IS DEBATED

JEFFERSON CITY - State Sen. Jerry Howard is one of 10 Missouri legislators spending long hours this week trying to hammer out a compromise between House and Senate versions of a workers compensation reform bill.

The legislation is regarded as a top priority of the 1993 session. In recent years, premiums for workers compensation have skyrocketed, which business leaders say have forced some commercial enterprises to fold and limited the ability of others to expand. The high premiums are also considered a deterrent for new businesses to locate in Missouri.

The Senate approved a version of the bill 32-0 last month, and the House has approved a bill that is considerably different from the Senate's. The role of the conferees is to resolve differences and get a final product back to each chamber before the May 14 adjournment time.

Going into a lengthy night session of the conference committee Wednesday, Howard pointed out that there are 54 distinct differences between the versions. So far, 19 had been discussed, with five of them unresolved.

"The conferees so far have shown a remarkable amount of common sense dealing with the bill," said the Dexter Democrat. "I don't think the House and Senate are that far apart."

Howard said he is optimistic the bill will be in good shape by the time lawmakers adjourn at noon Friday for the week.

"There has been some concern raised about trial lawyers trying to write the bill, but the trial lawyers I have talked to seem to have been happy with the Senate position," said Howard.

Rep. Mark Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, a member of the standing House committee that handles workers compensation, said: "I think everybody knew this bill would be eventually written in conference, but what we wanted to do was make sure crucial issues could be discussed in conference and wanted to get as much bad stuff off on the House floor so it didn't have to tie up the conference.

"On the floor we moved the bill on a scale of 10 for getting it in the best position going to conference, from zero to five and a half," added Richardson.

When it came time for a final vote in the House, Richardson voted against the bill, which he said "was a symbolic objection" to the floor leader's moving the previous question to end debate. He noted there were still at least a dozen amendments that needed consideration.

"It is not a real good bill at this point, but when all is said and done, I think we can still have a bill good enough for me to vote for," said Richardson. "But the House bill in its exact form now, is worse than no bill at all."

Rep. Larry Thomason, D-Kennett, has some reservations about the House version, but noted, "It is a bigger step forward than last year's bill by far. I would have preferred that the bill have more in it to contain costs, but it is a step forward - not as big a step as I would have preferred. We still have to wait and see what the conference ~comes up with."

Rep. Marilyn Williams, D-Dudley, added: "There are still some changes I would like to see made in the areas of cost containment and stricter fraud regulations, but it is definitely better than last year's bill."

The workers comp measure approved by lawmakers in 1992 was regarded as only a first step.

Rep. Dennis Ziegenhorn, D-Sikeston, chairman of the House Insurance Committee, rated last year's bill a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10 in dealing with the problem. Like his colleagues, Ziegenhorn is optimistic about getting a good bill passed.

He is hoping the final legislation will include a provision from the House bill that phases out the state's reliance on the National Commission on Compensation Insurance (NCCI) for setting workers comp rates. The result, which Ziegenhorn favors, will be competitive bidding with the market determining premiums.

The bill also includes a provision for a state-operated mutual insurance company for smaller businesses that can't get coverage but do not need to be in the statewide pool. He feels this will increase competition in the workers comp industry.

"We are telling the current companies if they don't want to be in the ball game, then we are going to be in it not because we want to, but because we are forced to," said Ziegenhorn.

"Forming this mutual company means we are serious about this competitive bidding."

Ziegenhorn said he was pleased with the nonpartisan conduct shown by House members in debating the bill, and he said their serious interest in the bill showed it is a problem facing everybody's constituents.

Rep. Mary Kasten, R-Cape Girardeau, said the House bill "is not what we would have liked, but better than I had anticipated."

She added, "It is as good as I suppose could be done, considering all the volatile issues. But we are hoping the Senate version is more explicit in the final bill drafted by the conference committee."

Rep. David Schwab, R-Jackson, said he was disappointed that an amendment by Richardson to tighten the language in defining an accident was defeated. Nevertheless, Schwab said, "I feel we were able to put enough amendments on so we will have something pretty good coming out of the conference committee."

Added Rep. Herb Fallert, D-Ste. Genevieve: "I think when it comes out of conference, we will have a pretty good bill. It will be a better bill when it comes back than it is at the present time."

Sen. Howard noted that a provision he is hoping will be part of the final bill will exempt businesses with less than five employees from workers comp coverage. He explained that many small contractors in the Bootheel are having trouble competing with out of state contractors who are not required to have workers comp.

This is the second straight year that Howard has been involved in a late session conference committee, requiring long hours with a priority bill. Last year, Howard served on the panel that hammered out a controversial ethics bill.

"This is much more important than that bill and maybe more complicated because it affects so many businesses in this state," said Howard.