Helping staff back to work after sickness or injury is poorly provided in the UK despite the fact that it can cut the cost of health insurance claims.
By Rachel Williams
According to consultant occupational therapist Emma Bowd, the level of help received by workers who become ill or are injured through work is inconsistent. Speaking at a conference held by Swiss Re and the College of Occupational Therapists, Bowd said successful provision depended on making employee benefits packages available to staff as well as on levels of GP service and NHS waiting lists.
About 3.7% of all working time is lost to sickness and the average employee takes around eight and a half days off work sick each year, according to Cigna Healthcare.
Bowd said: "The traditional approach towards an injured claimant within the UK health insurance industry has been one of claims processing, medical report chasing and, if lawyers are involved, a prolonged and adversarial claims settlement period. All these factors reinforce a culture of disability and do not focus on returning the injured employee to work. There is very little interaction between the employer, insurer, medical personnel and lawyers, and little use is made of allied health professionals."
However, an active approach to occupational rehabilitation has been used in Australia since the early 1980s, where spiralling compensation costs triggered legislation.
"Compulsory rehabilitation halved the costs of claims for self-insurers in six months in New South Wales alone," Bowd added.
As a result of occupational rehabilitation, she said staff were able to return to paid employment and the employer retained its workers, reducing the costs of recruiting temporary staff. Insurers also reduced their exposure to claims costs by both improving the management of existing claims and reducing the potential for new ones.
While improvements have been made, Bowd said there were still further challenges for employers and insurers.
"In the absence of compulsory rehabilitation legislation, it will be important to implement a system that can guarantee the provision of rehabilitation services to all workers, not just those lucky enough to be employed by companies with links to progressive insurance companies. Consistency of service provision across insurers will also need to be addressed."
This follows research showing that people believe employers are replacing the State in taking responsibility for staff health and financial security.
The research by Norwich Union found that two-thirds of bosses felt responsible for their workers' health and financial well being, while four in five employees believed this was their employer's responsibility. Meanwhile, a third of employees said they would rely on their employer to provide financial assistance if sickness or injury prevented them from working for a long period of time.
Despite these findings, protection in the workplace remains patchy. Only 20% of employers offer PMI against 10% who offer income protection, despite the fact that one in four believe bosses should provide the cover by law.
Employee benefits consultant William Mercer has also called on employers to manage lost time as well as sickness absence to identify whether absences are illness- related. Christine Owen, occupational health specialist for the group, warned employers not to overlook the attitudes and values of managers and employees. Back pain, for example, one of the biggest causes of absence, is often not only a physical problem but the result of depression.
