Healthy Business

Health at work – an independent review of sickness absence

The figures speak for themselves: 140 million working days lost to sickness absence in a year, at a cost of £13 billion to the taxpayer and a loss of £15 billion pounds in economic output.

The recent Health at Work review – carried out by Dame Carol Black and David Frost CBE, and presented to Parliament in November sets out some possible answers for the future.

Providing an overview of the UK’s current sickness absence management system, the Health at Work review puts forward recommendations for better, fairer and more cost-effective ways to reduce the number of employees leaving work due to ill health.

One of the most far reaching changes recommended in the Health at Work review relates to changes in the fit note system. Currently a GP can advise that a patient is unfit for work, or that they may be fit for work if certain adjustments are made such as working hours or tasks performed. The problem here is that in many cases, GPs’ knowledge of the patient’s job is limited and recommendations can be made solely on job-specific criteria – for instance, someone whose job involves heavy lifting may not be fit for that task due to illness, but could perform within another capacity in their place of work.

In order to ensure that people have the best possible support in returning to work, Health at Work recommends that an Independent Assessment Service (IAS) is introduced. This IAS would take some of the burden away from GPs and provide in-depth ‘functional assessment and occupational health advice’ to help people back to work as soon as possible. This service would be available for people whose absence has lasted approximately 4 weeks.

In cases where an individual’s health condition means that their current job is incompatible, the recommendation by Black/Frost is for patients to be able to seek new suitable employment through a job-brokering provider, who will help match their skills and abilities to a job that is compatible with their health condition.

Another of the Health at Work review’s key recommendations is that expenditure by employers ‘such as medical treatments or vocational rehabilitation should attract tax relief’. While those who hold high-paying positions in larger organisations are more likely to have access to occupational health, less qualified employees and those from smaller organisations are at present ‘likely to be excluded from interventions to get them back to work’. Tax relief on these services could encourage more employers to offer them to staff, with the reduction in employer tax bills (approx £150 million) outweighed by a possible £250 million reduction in lost output.

The Health at Work review also recommends that tax exemption for employer-funded psychological support services (such as advice and counselling) be maintained, as these help employees deal more effectively with issues that affect absence rates and performance.

Speaking in HR Magazine, AXA PPP healthcare’s membership and people director Sonia Wolsey-Cooper believes the proposals ‘are a timely spur to HR professionals to review their approaches to managing health and wellbeing’, especially in light of the annual £37 billion cost of sickness absence. However, she warns that ‘fixing what’s broken’ is only part of the solution. Organisations need to take a ‘proactive approach to wellbeing, with clear objectives that focus on reducing health risks and managing health outcomes.

What are your views on Health at Work? Does it provide what companies need to help minimise sickness absence? Let us know in the comments.