What DS 67 is
Supreme Decree 67 of 1999 develops an additional-contribution procedure within the insurance scheme under Law 16.744. Assessment considers employing entities’ actual accident experience according to official rules. It is not a rate chosen by the enterprise or an assessment derived solely from its internal accident indicator. The rate serves to finance the protection system.
Assessment and periods
ISL explains that assessment takes place periodically and uses information from earlier periods to establish the rate applicable subsequently. Data such as days lost, disabilities, deaths and worker population are considered, with prescribed inclusions and exclusions. Looking at the latest quarter is therefore insufficient. An accident’s date and the assessment process occur at different points in time.
Reductions and requirements
Obtaining an exemption or reduction requires review of the applicable conditions and evidence. Fewer accidents must not be presented as an automatic guarantee of a reduction. SUSESO’s compendium distinguishes the rate linked to economic activity from the process based on actual accident experience. New or unassessed entities also require checking the corresponding rules before making a comparison.
Reviewing a communication
Check the entity’s identity, periods, workers and included events. If a discrepancy exists, gather the documents explaining the datum and use the relevant procedure. A difference may arise from an error, classification or counting rule. Correcting the internal dashboard without understanding the official underlying record does not necessarily resolve the problem.
Data-review example
An enterprise notices days lost that it does not recognise in its monthly summary. Before challenging them, it can check the person, episode and period concerned and whether the system uses a different definition. The aim is to reconstruct the datum with evidence, without altering facts or concealing harm. This example illustrates a consistency review; it neither calculates a rate nor determines an appeal’s outcome.
Responsible preventive interpretation
A favourable rate does not demonstrate an absence of hazards, and an unfavourable change does not, by itself, explain which control failed. Accident rates must be accompanied by exposure assessment and follow-up of measures. The timetable, requirements and channels are consulted in the corresponding official process. Prevention aims to reduce actual harm; reducing its recording can worsen understanding of the problem even when an indicator appears to improve.
