Vocational rehabilitation The business case for retaining newly disabled staff and those with a long-term health condition

Evidence that vocational
rehabilitation is cost-effective
The report “Vocational Rehabilitation: What
Works, For Whom and When” (Waddell et al,
2008) found: “There is strong evidence and
considerable UK business experience that
sickness absence and disability management is
cost effective and may reduce sickness absence
between 20 per cent and 60 per cent.”
“Sickness
absence could be
reduced by up to
60 per cent”
The literature on vocational rehabilitation includes several references to the cost
benefits of the policy (Marsden et al, 2004). One example is provided by a study
(Hunter et al, 2006) of 89 people with lower back pain (working for a water utility
company). Each was given a functional restorative programme (FRP), including aerobic
exercise, graded flexibility and strength training, work conditioning, education and job
specific training to facilitate self-management and safe working practices. The mean
cost per employee for sickness absence in the twenty-four months pre-programme was
£1,988. In the 24 months post programme this reduced to £618. Amongst the findings
the study reported: “The average cost of the functional restoration programme (FRP)
for each participant was £917 per person. Assuming sickness absence would have
continued or increased over time without active intervention, there appears to be a cost
saving to the company.”
There is also official guidance in support of our business case. In 2009 NICE produced a
“Costing Report” for implementing their guidance. They concluded that, where the cost
attributable to each sick day was greater than £63.36, it was reasonable to assume that
implementing the guidance would save money (section 3.1.18).
8