Why Texas’ Model Encourages Better Employee Advocacy

For over three decades, Texas has stood out as the only state in the nation where employers can choose whether or not to subscribe to the state’s workers’ compensation system.

Texas’ approach creates a system where businesses have strong incentives to prioritize workplace safety, streamline benefits, and provide superior injury care—resulting in stronger employee advocacy.

By removing the blanket protections of “exclusive remedy” found in traditional workers’ compensation models, Texas compels employers to take a more proactive and accountable approach. They must not only focus on preventing workplace injuries but also ensure injured employees receive high-quality care to minimize legal exposure.

Research shows that this approach drives better medical outcomes, faster recovery times, and an overall improved experience for employees.

1. An Intellectually Honest Approach

In the traditional workers’ compensation context, when an employee is injured on the job, employers generally enjoy “exclusive remedy” protections. This means employees typically cannot file negligence lawsuits if they accept workers’ compensation benefits. However, under the Texas non-subscription system, employers who opt out of workers’ compensation lose that exclusive remedy defense and may be sued if found liable.

Why does this matter for employees? The possibility of negligence claims creates a powerful incentive for employers to enhance safety programs, communicate transparently, and promptly address injuries. Instead of denying or delaying care, these employers often adopt a proactive approach to avoid litigation and ensure workers heal quickly and effectively.

On a recent episode of Forecasting Success, Bob Wilson, President of WorkCompCollege.com, commented on how Texas’ model can benefit injured workers.

Wilson noted that the liability exposure in Texas’ model creates an incentive for employers to take proactive steps to protect workers, differentiating it from other models such as Oklahoma’s Employee Injury Benefit Act. He explained:

“Texas doesn’t afford exclusive remedy protection to non-subscribing employers. That exposure gives a different emphasis to protecting your interests and your assets, so if you’re a non-subscriber, you’re probably doing a little better job than if perhaps you’re given exclusive remedy–like they had in Oklahoma—and don’t have to take those steps.”

— Bob Wilson, Forecasting Success Podcast

Research supports this conjecture.

For example, research out of Stanford by Morantz, A.D. Rejecting the Grand Bargain: What Happens When Large Companies Opt Out of Workers’ Compensation? highlights that workplace safety initiatives under these programs have reduced severe and traumatic injuries by nearly 50%.

This demonstrates how liability exposure can drive employers to adopt proactive measures that prioritize worker safety and health.

2. Competition Drives System Improvements

The Texas system fosters competition between the state’s workers’ compensation plan and private injury benefit alternatives.

On Forecasting Success, Wilson highlighted how this system acts as a competitive force in Texas, driving improvements across both traditional workers’ compensation and alternative models:

“The presence or ability to non-subscribe is a competitive value to the workers’ comp system. The system has to be good enough that people want to come in. … And, for those who opt out, the liability exposure encourages them to do a better job.”

By fostering accountability and innovation, the Texas model ensures that employee advocacy isn’t just an ideal—but a practical reality that benefits workers when they need it most.

Research by Jinks et al. (2020) in Opting out of workers’ compensation: Non-subscription in Texas and its effects illustrates how this competition has led to faster recovery and reduced hospitalizations, ensuring injured workers receive timely and effective care.

1. Improved Recovery Experience: Total medical payments dropped by 40%, while the system facilitated faster recovery through reduced hospitalizations.
2. Faster Return to Work: Work-loss durations were reduced by 80%, helping employees regain their livelihoods sooner.

This dual structure—where companies can select either the traditional state system or a private alternative—drives continuous innovation and employee-centered reforms. As employers move in and out of the system, state regulators and private insurance carriers feel the pressure to offer better benefits, more streamlined processes, and higher-quality care for injured workers.

3. Best Practices for Employee Advocacy

Texas injury benefit programs often prioritize practices that lead to better medical outcomes and high employee satisfaction, as recognized through the Qualified Compensation Alternative for Recovering Employees (QCARE) designation.

QCARE is a simple, no-cost, online designation that highlights employers with responsible injury benefit programs adhering to high industry standards.

These standards include:

• Awareness of Negligence Liability Exposure: Employers have a greater incentive to ensure workplace safety and employee care, with manageable and insurable liability exposure encouraging proactive measures.
• Defined Injury Benefits: Programs include specific levels of medical, wage replacement, and death and dismemberment benefits. These benefits are clearly outlined in insurance policies and benefit plans, ensuring transparency and consistency.
• Fair, Well-Communicated Injury Reporting Standards: Employers implement clear reporting guidelines, communicated effectively to employees, with a good cause exception for delays. This ensures timely and fair handling of claims.
• Broadly Defined Covered Injuries: Programs cover accidents, occupational diseases, and cumulative trauma, offering comprehensive protection to workers.
• Benefits Paid Without Regard to Fault: Employees receive benefits regardless of whether the injury was caused by the employer, the employee, or a third party, removing adversarial barriers to recovery.
• Employer Pays 100% of Costs: Employees bear no costs for participation, as employers cover all expenses from the date of hire, eliminating financial burdens for workers.
• Compliance with Federal ERISA Laws: Programs align with widely-accepted federal employee benefit regulations, ensuring consistency in communication, fiduciary obligations, and claims payment.
• Broad Insurance Coverage: Comprehensive insurance protects benefits, employer liability, and related expenses, ensuring financial security for both employers and employees.
• Approved Claims Administration: Claims are managed by insurers, licensed third-party administrators, or approved adjusters, ensuring professionalism and adherence to best practices.

4. A Key Part of the Employee Advocacy Equation

Employee advocacy is not just a buzzword. When an on-the-job injury threatens a worker’s family, finances, and future, the employer’s responsiveness can make all the difference. The Texas non-subscription option has driven:

• Better Training and Quality Control: Employers who manage their own programs often invest heavily in professional claims handling, fiduciary oversight, and strong communication channels.
• Faster Claim Resolution and Better Outcomes: Without bureaucratic hurdles, non-subscribers can expedite treatments and wage replacement.
• Continual Improvement: Competitive tension between traditional workers’ comp and non-subscription encourages upgrades, such as simplifying plan documents, incorporating “good cause” exceptions, and aligning programs with federal ERISA standards.

5. Looking Ahead

Texas’ model underscores a crucial lesson: when businesses are directly responsible for workplace injuries—without the shield of exclusive remedy protections—they are more likely to prioritize safety, accountability, and quality care.

This approach doesn’t just benefit employers looking to avoid litigation; it significantly improves the experience and well-being of employees by ensuring more efficient injury response, comprehensive benefits, and faster recovery.

The Texas model continues to evolve, pushing both state regulators and private benefit providers to improve their offerings. By fostering competition and placing responsibility directly on employers, the system drives real change—ensuring that employees are not just numbers in a bureaucratic process but individuals whose health, financial security, and livelihoods are valued.

Ultimately, this approach reflects a broader truth: when companies are required to do better, they often do—leading to a safer, more responsive, and employee-first workplace.