REGULATORY ANALYSIS
FOR AMENDMENTS OF RULES 16 AND 18
OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION RULES OF PROCEDURE
7 CCR 1101-3

1.	Description of classes of persons who will be affected by the rules, including classes that will bear the costs of the rules and classes that will benefit from the rules.

The classes of persons affected by the rules are all persons and entities involved in the Colorado Workers’ Compensation system.  This includes, but is not limited to, injured workers, health care providers, insurance carriers, third party administrators and employers.

2.	Description of the probable quantitative and qualitative impact of the proposed rules, economic or otherwise, upon the classes of affected persons.

This emergency rule clarifies an existing requirement to file an admission of liability reporting benefits being paid where those benefits are paid pursuant to an order.  The requirement to file an admission after an initial award of benefits has been in place for several years.  The Court of Appeals recently determined the rule as written did not actually require the filing of an admission.  The emergency rules returns the rule to the previous understanding and practice.  As such, the impact of the change will be minimal.

3.	Probable costs to the agency and other agencies of the implementation and enforcement of the proposed rules and any anticipated effect on state revenues.

No impact on costs or revenues is anticipated as a result of the rule changes.  

4.	Comparison of the probable costs and benefits of the proposed rules to the probable costs and benefits of inaction. 

Adoption of the emergency rule reestablishes common practice and will not impose any additional cost.  Inaction would result in injured workers being denied crucial advisement of their rights under the law and impede the ability of the Division of Workers’ compensation to actively manage claims.
 
5.	Determination of whether there are less costly or less intrusive methods for achieving the purpose of the rules.

There are no known less costly or less intrusive means.  

6.	Description of any alternative methods for achieving the purpose of the proposed rules that were seriously considered by the agency and the reasons they were rejected in favor of the proposed rules.

The alternative is to maintain the status quo, which was considered and rejected as the proposed rules are more efficient and substantially simpler.