Texas Workers’ Comp Networks Report Lower Costs and Faster Return to Work

Texas workers’ compensation networks recorded lower claim costs, faster access to initial care and stronger return-to-work results than care delivered outside networks, according to the state’s 2026 report card. The differences appeared in both lost-time claims, where workers missed time from work, and medical-only claims, where reported claims did not involve lost time. Taken together, the figures describe a broad pattern across spending, treatment and work absence. They don’t, by themselves, establish that network arrangements caused every difference.

Claim costs and what they show

Six months after injury, average medical spending was $2,941 per network claim, nearly 11% below the $3,297 average for care outside networks. The gap appeared in both claim categories reported. Lost-time claims averaged $7,409 in networks and $8,901 outside them, while medical-only claims averaged $1,243 and $1,404, respectively.

Those comparisons matter because the two categories describe different patterns of workplace injury and care. Lost-time claims combine medical spending with cases in which workers have been away from their jobs; medical-only claims provide a separate view of cases without reported lost time. Seeing lower average spending in both categories makes the cost difference harder to dismiss as a result of one category alone. Still, averages can conceal variation among individual claims, and the report figures given here don’t explain how injury severity or other case characteristics compare between groups.

Here’s the thing: lower average spending is a useful outcome to track, but it’s not a complete measure of care. Spending can reflect the services workers receive, how quickly they receive them, and how long treatment continues. Without more detail on those factors, the report card’s comparison can show that the averages differ, but it can’t settle why.

Work and treatment outcomes

Return-to-work measures also favored network patients. Ninety percent said they’d returned to work at some point after injury, compared with 81% of non-network patients. Reported time away averaged eight weeks for network patients and 14 weeks for those treated outside networks. That’s a substantial difference in the reported averages, though the figures don’t say whether every worker returned to the same duties or on the same schedule.

The two measures tell related but distinct parts of the story. The share who returned to work records whether a return happened at some point, while average time away speaks to how long workers reported being absent. Neither figure alone describes the quality or durability of a return. And a comparison between groups doesn’t show whether network care itself accounts for the difference, since the report summary doesn’t provide enough detail to assess other influences on recovery or work arrangements.

Initial nonemergency care came sooner within networks: an average of 3.9 days after injury, against 5.1 days outside them. In workers’ compensation, timing can matter because an initial visit is often an early step in assessment and treatment. But the reported averages don’t show the full range of wait times or whether faster access led to a different course of care. Averages are a signal, not a case-by-case account.

Satisfaction was 63% among network patients and 59% among non-network patients. A larger share of network patients, 65%, reported no difficulty getting needed care, compared with 56% outside networks. Those results point in the same direction as the access comparison, although the satisfaction gap is narrower than the difference in reported difficulty getting care. This is more significant than it looks: workers’ ability to obtain care is a practical part of the system’s performance, even when cost and work absence draw more attention.

Network patients were more likely to receive professional medical and pharmacy services, while hospital services were more common among non-network patients. That pattern adds context to the spending figures, but it doesn’t explain them on its own. The summary doesn’t provide service counts, clinical details or reasons for the differences. (And this is the part most people overlook.) A difference in service mix may shape average costs, but the figures here don’t tell readers whether it reflects the needs of patients, access patterns or other factors.

What the comparison can and can’t tell employers

The biennial analysis covered injuries from June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2025. It included 219,941 workers treated in networks and 216,371 treated outside them, while the survey results drew on 2,161 responses. The claim groups were similar in scale, and the survey adds workers’ reported experience to the administrative measures. Even so, survey findings represent responses from those who took part; the summary doesn’t describe how respondents were selected or how their answers compare with those of workers who didn’t respond.

As of March 10, 2026, Texas had 22 certified workers’ compensation networks serving all 254 counties. That statewide reach gives employers and insurers a broad basis for monitoring network care. It also makes careful comparisons useful: the report presents differences across a large population, but it doesn’t establish that each network performs alike or that each worker’s experience matches the average.

If you’re working in this space, the practical value of the report is in tracking several measures together. Spending, time to initial care, time away from work and workers’ reported access each capture a different part of the experience. Reading them side by side offers more than a cost comparison, while still leaving open questions about the reasons for the gaps. A pattern worth watching.

The report’s figures give employers and insurers a clear starting point for following how network care relates to cost, access and work absence. That said, the comparisons are descriptive: they show how reported outcomes differed between network and non-network care, not what would have happened to the same workers under the other arrangement. The strongest conclusion is therefore measured. Across the reported categories, network patients had lower average costs, earlier initial care and better reported return-to-work and access results; the summary doesn’t establish which factors produced those differences.