The 2016 Premium Rate Tables model the updated Rate Framework and identify the Class-Level Projected Premium Rates for each of the 34 industry classes, as well as the range of risk bands, the actual risk band rates and the number of risk bands for each class in 2016.
- 2016 Class Projected Premium Rates (PDF)
- Class Projected and Employer Projected Premium Rates (PDF)
- Class Projected and Employer Actual Premium Rates (PDF)
Notes
- The premium rates identified above reflect the 34 industry classes as though the update Rate Framework had been implemented in 2016. That means that the review of claim experience and reported insurable earnings (IE), among other factors, now includes the rolling six years from 2009 to 2014 (dropping 2007 and 2008 but adding 2013 and 2014).
- It is important to re-confirm that all of the modelling completed is revenue neutral in that in produces the same amount of premium revenue at the Schedule 1 level for 2016 that would have been accounted by the WSIB.
- The number of risk bands per Industry Class remains between 42 and 83, however as a result of the class expansion, the WSIB is seeing an increase in the total number of risk bands across Schedule 1 from 1,500 to nearly 2,500.
Examples
G1 – Building Construction
- Premium Rate based on 2014 model: $5.22, with New Claims Costs of $2.45
- NEW Premium Rate based on 2016 model: $4.85, with New Claims Costs of $2.05
- The collective new claims costs of the employers in G1 have decreased based on the data for the more recent years of 2013 and 2014. As result, they are allocated a lower share of both Administrative and UFL costs.
A – Primary Resources, expanded to A1 – Agriculture & A2 – Mining Quarrying and Oil & Gas Extraction
- Premium Rate based on 2014 model: $4.68, with New Claims Costs of 2.14
- NEW Premium Rate based on 2016 model: $6.37, with New Claims Costs of $2.63 for A1; $5.48, with New Claims Costs of $2.33 for A2
- The collective new claims costs of the employers in both Classes A1 and A2 have increased based on the data for the more recent years of 2013 and 2014. The former Class A was expanded as a result of the Risk Disparity Analysis that demonstrates a difference in risk and actuarial predictability. As result, they are allocated a higher share of both Admin and UFL costs.
- It is important to note that this outcome would have been consistent even if Class A had not been expanded since their aggregated NCC would have driven the rate higher.