Why Your Lowest-Cost Facility Holds the Blueprint for Success

Are You Looking in the Wrong Places?

When organizations review their workers’ compensation performance, the first instinct is almost always the same. Find the location with the worst results. The highest costs, the most claims, the longest reporting delays, or the greatest number of lost-time cases quickly become the center of attention. Meetings are scheduled, corrective action plans are developed, and resources are directed toward fixing the problem. There’s certainly value in addressing poor performance.

But there’s another question that is often overlooked:

What is your best-performing location doing differently?

Comparing locations isn’t only about identifying weak performers. It’s also about discovering successful practices that can be replicated across the company. Sometimes the fastest way to improve your workers’ compensation program isn’t by fixing your worst location—it’s by learning from your best one.

Every Organization Already Has Success Stories

Even companies struggling with workers’ compensation costs usually have locations that consistently perform well. Their claims are reported quickly. Employees return to work sooner. Litigation rates remain low. Large-loss claims occur less frequently.

These results rarely happen by accident. They’re usually the product of consistent leadership, clear communication, strong reporting processes, and supervisors who understand their role in injury management. Instead of treating these locations as exceptions, organizations should treat them as models. The goal isn’t simply to celebrate good performance. It’s to understand how that performance was achieved and determine whether those same practices can be implemented elsewhere.

Benchmark Against Yourself First

Many employers compare themselves to industry averages. External benchmarks certainly have value. They can help determine whether your injury rates or claim frequency align with organizations performing similar work. However, some of the most valuable comparisons happen inside your own company.

Your locations operate under the same policies, the same corporate leadership, and often the same insurance program. That makes internal comparisons especially meaningful because many outside variables have already been removed. If one facility consistently reports claims within one day while another averages ten days, the difference is probably not the insurance carrier. It’s much more likely to be the reporting process, supervisor expectations, or workplace culture. Those are operational issues that can be addressed.

Look Beyond Total Costs

One mistake organizations frequently make is ranking locations solely by total workers’ compensation costs. Larger facilities naturally generate more payroll, employ more people, and may experience more claims simply because of their size. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are performing poorly. Instead, compare locations using normalized operational metrics.

Lag time reveals how quickly injuries are reported. Claims rates show the number of claims relative to workforce size. Lost-time ratios indicate how effectively injured employees are returning to work. Litigation rates highlight where communication or claim handling may be breaking down. Large-loss claims reveal where severe injuries are occurring or where claims are becoming difficult to control. These measurements provide a much clearer picture of operational performance than total incurred losses alone.

Ask Better Questions

Once locations are ranked from strongest to weakest, the next step isn’t assigning blame. It’s asking questions.

Why does one facility consistently report injuries on the same day while another averages over a week?

What training do supervisors receive at the top-performing location?

How are return-to-work conversations handled?

Are injured employees contacted differently?

Is there a stronger relationship between local management and the claims adjuster?

Often, the answers have very little to do with technology or budget. Instead, they involve communication, accountability, and consistent execution of proven processes. Those are improvements that every location can adopt.

Turn Best Practices Into Company Standards

One of the greatest advantages of internal benchmarking is that success has already been proven within your organization. You don’t need to wonder whether a process might work. It already does. The challenge becomes documenting those successful practices and turning them into organizational standards.

If one location consistently reports injuries within 24 hours, study its reporting process. If another location has an exceptionally low lost-time rate, examine how supervisors coordinate transitional duty assignments. If litigation is unusually low at a particular facility, learn how managers communicate with injured employees after an incident occurs.

These aren’t theoretical ideas borrowed from another industry. They’re practices already producing measurable results within your own company.

Improvement Becomes Easier When Success Is Visible

One of the most powerful effects of internal benchmarking is that it changes the conversation. Instead of saying, “This location needs to improve,” leaders can say, “Here’s a facility that’s already doing this successfully.” That creates credibility.

Employees are often more receptive to learning from peers facing similar challenges than they are to adopting ideas from outside consultants or industry reports. Success becomes tangible. It becomes achievable. And it demonstrates that better performance is possible without dramatically changing the organization’s structure or resources.

Build a Culture of Continuous Learning

Organizations that consistently improve their workers’ compensation programs rarely operate in isolation. They create opportunities for locations to learn from one another. Supervisors share reporting practices. Safety leaders exchange ideas. Claims coordinators discuss successful return-to-work strategies.

Rather than competing internally, facilities begin collaborating around proven methods. Over time, the organization’s highest-performing location stops being an exception. It becomes the standard everyone else works toward.

The Bottom Line

It’s natural to focus attention on the locations with the biggest workers’ compensation challenges. But don’t overlook the value of your strongest performers. Your best-performing facility already holds valuable insights into reporting, communication, return-to-work, and injury management practices that are producing measurable results.

By studying what your top performers do well and sharing those practices throughout the organization—you create a practical roadmap for continuous improvement. Sometimes the best solution to your workers’ compensation problem isn’t finding something new. It’s recognizing that your organization has already found the answer.

Michael Stack, CEO of Amaxx LLC, is an expert in workers’ compensation cost containment systems and provides education, training, and consulting to help employers reduce their workers’ compensation costs by 20% to 50%. He is co-author of the #1 selling comprehensive training guide “Your Ultimate Guide to Mastering Workers’ Comp Costs: Reduce Costs 20% to 50%.” Stack is the creator of Injury Management Results (IMR) software and founder of Amaxx Workers’ Comp Training Center. WC Mastery Training teaching injury management best practices such as return to work, communication, claims best practices, medical management, and working with vendors. IMR software simplifies the implementation of these best practices for employers and ties results to a Critical Metrics Dashboard.

Contact: mstack@reduceyourworkerscomp.com.

Workers’ Comp Roundup Blog: https://blog.reduceyourworkerscomp.com/

Injury Management Results (IMR) Software: https://imrsoftware.com/

©2025 Amaxx LLC. All rights reserved under International Copyright Law.

Do not use this information without independent verification. All state laws vary. You should consult with your insurance broker, attorney, or qualified professional.