Industry Research

High ROI on Publicly Funded Stay at Work Programs

Governments as well as employers stand to benefit significantly by investing in programs that keep employees at work after an illness or injury.
By: | April 7, 2016 • 4 min read

Publicly funded stay-at-work/return-to-work programs could help employers that may face reduced productivity from injured workers returning before they are at 100 percent of functionality, suggests a new report.

Advertisement




State and/or federally funded SAW/RTW programs could also save the governments themselves unnecessary expenses for injured workers who are laid off or cannot return to their jobs. While the authors focus on employees not covered by workers’ comp programs, the case can also be made for covered workers who do not receive the help they should.

“Despite the clear benefits to workers and taxpayers, no federal agency is in charge of preventing job loss after injury or illness.”

“Millions of hard-working Americans leave the labor force every year, at least temporarily, because of injury or illness. Without steady earnings, these workers and their families often end up in public programs such as Social Security Disability Insurance, Supplemental Security Income, Medicare, and Medicaid. The resulting costs to state and federal governments are steep,” the report begins.

“But the public sector could help to reduce those costs by adopting strategies to help people stay at or return to work, rather than fall through the cracks of a fragmented system.”

The brief, The Case for Public Investment in Stay-at-Work/Return-to-Work Programs, was developed for the SAW/RTW Policy Collaborative, housed in the Department of Labor’s Office of Disability Employment Policy. The document is part of the collaborative’s efforts to promote positive SAW/RTW programs.

“Despite the clear benefits to workers and taxpayers, no federal agency is in charge of preventing job loss after injury or illness. And state workforce and vocational rehabilitation agencies have not traditionally focused on workers who are at risk of losing their jobs because of injury or illness,” the brief states.

“State-regulated workers’ compensation systems provide cash and medical benefits to workers who experience work-related injury or illness. But they do not help the millions of employees whose medical conditions are not work related, and they often fail to help even those who are covered.”

The Costs

The authors looked at the costs and benefits of an early intervention SAW/RTW program at the state level. They compared the costs to state and federal governments, the injured worker, and employers for a worker returning after an injury in a state with a hypothetical SAW/RTW program to one with no such program.

“Under our baseline assumptions, the state government would save about $83,000 in net benefits for each worker who is retained rather than replaced, following the onset of long-term disability,” the report says. “About $71,000 (or 85 percent) of the net benefits to the state would come from higher tax revenues under the SAW/RTW scenario than under the no-SAW/RTW scenario. The rest would predominantly be a result of avoiding the costs of Medicaid and unemployment compensation.”

Such a program would save the federal government even more — an estimated $292,000 in net benefits until the worker’s retirement. Much of those costs would result from avoiding public assistance expenses with the rest from higher tax revenues. The injured worker under the scenario would gain about $422,000 in net benefits from keeping his job and the associated compensation.

“The state government would save about $83,000 in net benefits for each worker who is retained rather than replaced, following the onset of long-term disability.”

Retaining an injured worker would admittedly be an expense for the employer. While the costs of recruiting, hiring, and training a new employee would be eliminated, the anticipated loss of productivity for an injured worker at less than full capacity equates to an estimated $185,000 — mainly from the assumed 16.3 percent reduction in productivity. However, those costs could be lowered.

“States may need to make larger investments, including subsidizing the wages of those with greatly reduced productivity, to sharply increase the number of workers who stay in the labor force,” the report says. “But states may not be willing to make these investments unless the federal government or workers (possibly via a payroll tax) help pay for them.”

Government Tools

States already have a variety of ways in which to help foster SAW/RTW efforts. “The workers’ comp system can make regulatory, process or service changes to improve the SAW/RTW services for workers with job related conditions,” according to the collaborative. “Some states have reemployment subsidies until the workers return to 100 percent functional capacity.”

State governments can include aggressive SAW/RTW strategies in their Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act plan. The act, implemented last summer, requires states to strategically align their workforce development programs.

Workforce agencies can help employees and employers identify and access SAW/RTW services, support development of, and state agency cooperation with, employment resource networks that facilitate SAW/RTW support, and leverage capabilities developed under the state’s Disability Employment Initiative.

Several states have tools in their short-term disability programs that allow wage subsidies or partial benefits for RTW. And state personnel agencies can help state workers by improving their access to evidence-based SAW/RTW services and improving incentives for workers and their managers to use SAW/RTW services effectively.

Washington State’s Model

Advertisement




A unique program in Washington State pays employers to help injured workers stay on the job. Stay at Work “is a financial incentive that encourages employers to bring their injured workers quickly and safely back to light duty or transitional work by reimbursing them for some of their costs,” the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries website states.

Employers may be reimbursed for 50 percent of the base wages paid to injured workers, as well as some of the costs of training, tools, or clothing the worker needs to undertake the transitional or light-duty work.

The program “has increased return to work and reduced workers’ compensation costs,” according to the SAW/RTW Policy Collaborative.

Nancy Grover is the president of NMG Consulting and the Editor of Workers' Compensation Report, a publication of our parent company, LRP Publications. She can be reached at [email protected]

4 Companies That Rocked It by Treating Injured Workers as Equals; Not Adversaries

The 2018 Teddy Award winners built their programs around people, not claims, and offer proof that a worker-centric approach is a smarter way to operate.
By: | October 30, 2018 • 3 min read

Across the workers’ compensation industry, the concept of a worker advocacy model has been around for a while, but has only seen notable adoption in recent years.

Even among those not adopting a formal advocacy approach, mindsets are shifting. Formerly claims-centric programs are becoming worker-centric and it’s a win all around: better outcomes; greater productivity; safer, healthier employees and a stronger bottom line.

Advertisement




That’s what you’ll see in this month’s issue of Risk & Insurance® when you read the profiles of the four recipients of the 2018 Theodore Roosevelt Workers’ Compensation and Disability Management Award, sponsored by PMA Companies. These four programs put workers front and center in everything they do.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top,” said Steve Legg, director of risk management for Starbucks.

Starbucks put claims reporting in the hands of its partners, an exemplary act of trust. The coffee company also put itself in workers’ shoes to identify and remove points of friction.

That led to a call center run by Starbucks’ TPA and a dedicated telephonic case management team so that partners can speak to a live person without the frustration of ‘phone tag’ and unanswered questions.

“We were focused on building up a program with an eye on our partner experience. Cost was at the bottom of the list. Doing a better job by our partners was at the top.” — Steve Legg, director of risk management, Starbucks

Starbucks also implemented direct deposit for lost-time pay, eliminating stressful wait times for injured partners, and allowing them to focus on healing.

For Starbucks, as for all of the 2018 Teddy Award winners, the approach is netting measurable results. With higher partner satisfaction, it has seen a 50 percent decrease in litigation.

Teddy winner Main Line Health (MLH) adopted worker advocacy in a way that goes far beyond claims.

Employees who identify and report safety hazards can take credit for their actions by sending out a formal “Employee Safety Message” to nearly 11,000 mailboxes across the organization.

“The recognition is pretty cool,” said Steve Besack, system director, claims management and workers’ compensation for the health system.

MLH also takes a non-adversarial approach to workers with repeat injuries, seeing them as a resource for identifying areas of improvement.

“When you look at ‘repeat offenders’ in an unconventional way, they’re a great asset to the program, not a liability,” said Mike Miller, manager, workers’ compensation and employee safety for MLH.

Teddy winner Monmouth County, N.J. utilizes high-tech motion capture technology to reduce the chance of placing new hires in jobs that are likely to hurt them.

Monmouth County also adopted numerous wellness initiatives that help workers manage their weight and improve their wellbeing overall.

“You should see the looks on their faces when their cholesterol is down, they’ve lost weight and their blood sugar is better. We’ve had people lose 30 and 40 pounds,” said William McGuane, the county’s manager of benefits and workers’ compensation.

Advertisement




Do these sound like minor program elements? The math says otherwise: Claims severity has plunged from $5.5 million in 2009 to $1.3 million in 2017.

At the University of Pennsylvania, putting workers first means getting out from behind the desk and finding out what each one of them is tasked with, day in, day out — and looking for ways to make each of those tasks safer.

Regular observations across the sprawling campus have resulted in a phenomenal number of process and equipment changes that seem simple on their own, but in combination have created a substantially safer, healthier campus and improved employee morale.

UPenn’s workers’ comp costs, in the seven-digit figures in 2009, have been virtually cut in half.

Risk & Insurance® is proud to honor the work of these four organizations. We hope their stories inspire other organizations to be true partners with the employees they depend on. &

Michelle Kerr is associate editor of Risk & Insurance. She can be reached at [email protected]