PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE WORK INJURY COMPENSATION ACT

2 In total, we received around 160 suggestions and requests for clarifications from 18 stakeholders, including employees, employers, legal experts, and non-government organisations. This paper summarises their key feedback on the WICA changes, and MOM’s responses.

3 A respondent suggested to require employers to buy compulsory insurance to cover their WICA liabilities for all employees, instead of only for manual employees and non-manual employees earning up to $2,600.

4 Employers are required to compensate all their injured employees, regardless of their salaries and whether they perform manual work. Nonetheless, employers are required to obtain WIC insurance for employees who are similarly covered under Part IV of the Employment Act (EA) as an added protection for these employees. Insurance is compulsory only for manual employees and those earning up to $2,600 to strike a balance between additional protection and increased business costs.

5 We received a range of feedback on expanding scope of compensation to cover light duties. Some supported the proposal and asked if it would be similar to the compensation for medical leave. Conversely, there were respondents who asked for differentiated treatment between compensation for medical leave and light duties, such as having a cap on the number of days of light duties and to not compensate light duties based on average monthly earnings (AME)¹ . Several respondents also felt that the existing compensation for medical leave was sufficient, and there was no need to extend compensation coverage to light duties.

6 Some respondents sought clarifications regarding employee’s and employer’s duty to report incidents. Some also shared concerns that even with the change in the incident reporting requirement, errant employers may still influence doctors’ decisions to avoid reporting.

7 Compensation terms for light duties should be no worse off than for medical leave, as both are due to work injury that prevented the employee from earning what he normally expects. Therefore, employees on light duties and medical leave should be compensated on the same basis – full AME for the first 14 days of light duty and/or medical leave; thereafter, 2/3 AME for up to 1 year from the date of accident. The key differences are that employers only need to compensate the shortfall between earned salaries and AME during periods of light duties.

8 The primary responsibility to report incidents to MOM rests with employers, as they must ensure their employees’ safety and health. To facilitate employers’ reporting, employees are required under the WICA to inform them of any incidents as soon as possible. Employers’ reporting requirements under WICA only apply if employers have knowledge of the accidents. Employees will receive notice of the reports after they have been submitted to MOM, to assure them that employers have followed up on reporting. Other parties, such as employees and health professionals² , who wish to file incident reports to MOM can continue to do so. There are existing mechanisms in place for the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) to take disciplinary actions to address allegations pertaining to health professionals’ malpractice, such as when no medical leave or light duties is prescribed at all to avoid reporting.

9 A respondent suggested to further raise the cap on medical expenses so as to cover cases with huge medical expenses.

10 The new medical expenses cap will fully cover the medical expenses incurred in more than 95% of claims where hospitalisation was required. We recognise that some cases may have medical expenses above this limit. Nevertheless, as employers are liable to compensate under WICA so long as there is a work injury, even when they are not at fault, the employers’ liabilities are capped. This is to keep the WICA regime an expeditious and low-cost regime. We will have to set reasonable monetary and time limits for compensation. Injured employees who wish to recover additional medical expenses or compensation can do so via Common Law.

11 Respondents sought clarifications on the three proposals to expedite claims processing, namely (i) removal of the requirement to file claim application for compensation for death or permanent incapacity; (ii) compensation based on the current incapacity; and (iii) compensation based on a multiple of the employee’s basic monthly salary.

12 For cases of fatal or serious injuries³ , employees or their families will no longer need to file compensation claim applications. Claim processing for these cases will commence once MOM or the insurer is notified of the accidents.

13 To expedite compensation for PI, compensation can instead be based on the prevailing state of incapacity (termed “current incapacity (CI)”) at the point of assessment occurring at least six months after the accident. At this stage, the employee’s extent of incapacity is unlikely to have significant changes thereafter for most cases. Health professionals will have the discretion to decide whether the employee is ready to be assessed for CI or to wait for the condition to fully stabilise to be assessed for PI. Parties to the claim can continue to raise objections if they are aggrieved by the extent of incapacity assessed. The employee would be re-assessed by the WIC Medical Board, whose decision is final.

14 In the event that there is no readily available and reliable evidence to compute the employee’s AME, the Commissioner can already compute compensation based on the co-workers’ AME. Under the new WICA, the Commissioner will additionally be empowered to compute compensation based on a multiple of the employee’s basic monthly salary (“derived AME”), if there is no other evidence available. The Commissioner will determine the multiple as and when necessary and the derived AME will be set higher than the average industry norms. While the above-mentioned methods allow us to proxy the employee’s AME, it would be best for employees to avoid this problem entirely by reporting to MOM immediately if employers fail to provide them with itemised pay slips, as required under the EA.

15 A majority of the feedback received were clarifications from insurers. These include the licensing requirements and conditions, the determination of claims admissibility and the adjudication of disputes.

16 Instead of mandating employers to purchase WIC insurance with a core set of standard terms and conditions, a respondent suggested to continue to allow for flexibility in underwriting by requiring insurers to compensate injured employees first before pursuing contractual recovery from the employers. Some respondents also suggested for certain conditions, exceptions and exclusions to be included in the core set, and asked about the treatment of existing policies sold before the changes take effect.

17 We also received feedback from some respondents, including insurers, asking MOM to continue processing permanent incapacity (PI) and fatal claims. Reasons include the perceived biasness that can occur when insurers process claims and insurers’ difficulty in meeting claims processing standards due to uncooperative parties.

18 We will provide more information on the licensing scheme to interested insurers by the end of 2019. Training will also be provided to ensure that insurers are able to process claims in accordance to MOM’s guidelines. We will continue to adjudicate compensation disputes to ensure fairness to all parties.

19 The intent of mandating a core set of standard policy terms and conditions is to mirror employers’ WICA liabilities so that they are protected against the risk of huge out-of-pocket expenses due to work accidents. Having a standard core set of terms and conditions will ensure that employers are adequately covered at the right premium. We will further consult with the insurers on the core set of terms and conditions to find the right balance between coverage and premium. To facilitate for smooth transition, employers with existing policies sold before the date of commencement of the amendments will be given a grace period of up to one year to purchase WIC insurance with the core set of terms and conditions.

20 With the exception of WIC insurance, insurers are already processing the claims for all other types of insurance, such as life, medical and travel, in Singapore. Other jurisdictions that also adopt the private WIC insurance model, such as Western Australia and India, have also required WIC insurers to process claims. The interests of the claimant will continue to be protected as insurers do not have discretion in setting the compensation amount. Compensation for incapacity is based on the assessment of a heath professional and computed based on a fixed formula. Insurers also have to abide by MOM’s guidelines when determining claims admissibility. Insurers who fail to comply with MOM’s requirements, conditions and directions may face administrative financial penalties (AFP) of up to $30,000 for each such failure, and licence suspension or cancellation.

21 To deter parties from delaying the claims process by withholding necessary information or documents from the Commissioner or insurer, a maximum fine of $5,000 and/or 6 months’ imprisonment will be imposed for failure to comply with the Commissioner’s direction for a first conviction and an enhanced fine of $10,000 for a second or subsequent conviction.

22 MOM would like to thank all respondents who have taken the time and effort to provide valuable feedback, and who have contributed towards strengthening our policy review process for the WICA.