One of my favorite sessions at the California Coalition on Workers’ Compensation (CCWC) annual conference had an incredibly long title: “Best Practices Californians Can Learn from Other States to Find Solutions for Cost Containment, AI Adaptation, and More.” Thankfully, the conversation itself was much more concise than the title. More importantly, it offered a perspective that extends well beyond California.
The panel included Stuart Colburn, Esq. (Downs & Stanford, P.C.), Mike Simmons (WKS Restaurant Group), Gerald Hogue (FedEx Freight), and Bill Zachry (CompSense). They did not spend their time arguing that California should become Texas, Florida, Ohio, or Colorado. In fact, they repeatedly cautioned against simply transplanting another state’s laws or regulations into a completely different environment. Every jurisdiction has its own history, politics, stakeholders, and legal framework. What works in one state may fail spectacularly in another.
But that wasn’t really their point. The real message was much simpler, and much more powerful.
Innovation doesn’t respect state lines
Workers’ compensation is one of the few industries where dozens of jurisdictions are simultaneously experimenting with different approaches to solving similar problems. Every state becomes a laboratory. Some experiments fail. Others quietly produce remarkable results. The opportunity isn’t to copy those solutions blindly. It’s to ask whether the underlying idea might make us better. That mindset is something every workers’ compensation professional, regardless of geography, should embrace.
Great ideas usually solve old problems
One of the most interesting discussions centered around return-to-work. A panelist described an AI-driven workflow that immediately analyzes physician restrictions, compares them against detailed job descriptions, and identifies meaningful transitional work within hours of the injury instead of days. Rather than replacing people, the technology removes administrative delays so employers can begin focusing on recovery almost immediately.
It would have been easy to walk away thinking the lesson was, “We need more AI.” That wasn’t the lesson. The lesson was that speed matters.
The longer an injured worker sits at home waiting for decisions, accommodations, or direction, the harder it often becomes to return and stay at work. Technology simply became the mechanism for solving a problem we’ve recognized for decades. The same principle applies whether you’re using sophisticated artificial intelligence or a well-designed spreadsheet. The innovation isn’t the software. The innovation is eliminating unnecessary delay.
Better information leads to better decisions
Several examples highlighted how technology can organize medical information more effectively. Colorado’s centralized medical repository, New York’s AI-assisted medical chronologies, and automated record management systems all shared the same objective: put the right information in front of the right people at the right time.
Again, this wasn’t really an AI discussion. It was a decision-making discussion.
Claims professionals, physicians and clinicians, attorneys, employers, and nurse case managers already spend enormous amounts of time hunting for information that already exists. Every hour spent searching records for important details is an hour not spent helping someone recover.
Technology cannot replace good judgment. It can, however, organize information so good judgment becomes much easier.
Earlier intervention almost always beats later reaction
One of the strongest stories shared during the session came from Bill’s experience many years ago implementing psychosocial screening for injured workers experiencing back injuries. Rather than waiting for claims to deteriorate, his team identified individuals at higher risk for delayed recovery and provided counseling and support early in the process. The results were remarkable: only two surgeries, no litigation, and eventually a 40% reduction in claims costs when expanded nationally.
They didn’t use data to deny claims. They used data to identify people who needed more help.
For years, I’ve written about the importance of addressing the whole person, not just the diagnosis. I was among the first in the industry, way back in 2010, to talk about the biopsychosocial approach to treatment and claims. The rest of the industry has caught up since then. Recovery isn’t determined solely by the severity of an injury. Communication, expectations, resilience, psychosocial factors, and support systems all influence outcomes. Technology simply gives us another opportunity to identify those needs earlier.
Employers have more influence than they think
Perhaps the biggest takeaway from the session wasn’t technological at all. It was cultural.
Several panelists challenged employers to stop waiting for legislators, regulators, TPAs, or defense counsel to fix every problem. While legislative reform certainly has its place, employers already control many of the variables that determine whether claims become unnecessarily complicated in the first place. They establish return-to-work expectations. They define communication standards. They influence settlement philosophy. They determine whether supervisors remain engaged with injured employees throughout recovery. They ensure coordination amongst the various stakeholders.
One story perfectly illustrated this point. During an alternative dispute resolution program, twenty-two employees who chose litigation were interviewed about why they had taken that step. Every one of them gave essentially the same answer.
Their supervisor never called.
It wasn’t about a lack of communication from HR, the adjuster, or the nurse case manager. It was about their supervisor, the same person they’d spent more waking hours with each week than almost anyone else.
The claims process itself wasn’t necessarily what failed. The relationship did. Most of the workers’ compensation ecosystem now understands we are fundamentally a people business. That story reinforces it better than almost anything I’ve heard recently. It doesn’t take a new budget request for a supervisor to stay in touch with their injured colleague.
Technology amplifies culture
Artificial intelligence appeared throughout nearly every discussion.
- Automated return-to-work
- Predictive analytics
- Medical chronologies
- Fraud detection
- Privacy considerations
- Data management
Yet something interesting happened every time the conversation returned to AI. Within minutes, the panel shifted back to discussing supervisors, communication, trust, physician relationships, employer culture, and employee engagement.
That may have been the most valuable takeaway of the entire session. Technology isn’t the hero. People still are.
Organizations with strong communication, engaged leadership, and thoughtful processes will almost certainly become more effective when they leverage AI appropriately. Organizations with poor communication and broken processes will simply become faster at making the same mistakes.
Looking beyond our own borders
One comment near the end of the session has stayed with me.
A panelist observed that one of the greatest advantages of having so many workers’ compensation jurisdictions is that none of us must solve every problem alone. Somewhere, another state has probably experimented with an idea worth studying. Somewhere else, another employer has already discovered a better approach to return-to-work, early intervention, medical management, litigation avoidance, or communication.
That doesn’t mean every solution belongs everywhere. But it does mean every solution deserves our curiosity, even if it’s not immediately applicable.
The best organizations – and people – rarely assume they already have all the answers. They continuously look outside their own walls, and sometimes outside their own state, to find better ways to serve injured workers, employers, providers, and claims professionals. That’s exactly what this panel encouraged.
My simple suggestion … Read publications from different jurisdictions, industries, and perspectives. Keep an eye open for evolving trends in other areas. Be attuned to emerging service providers that look at things differently. Stay updated on regulatory changes that, at first glance, don’t affect you. Talk with peers who can share their own experiences and solutions. In other words, don’t be myopic.
The future of workers’ compensation won’t be built by fifty-six jurisdictions independently reinventing the wheel. It will be built by leaders who are humble enough to learn from one another, wise enough to adapt good ideas to their own environments, and courageous enough to implement them.
Innovation does not respect state lines. Neither should our curiosity.
