Paul Avis argues that, in a price sensitive era, early intervention and rehabilitation are important for the containment of group income protection premiums
The return to work zone
There is one other key element that should not be overlooked. Return to work plans need to be trusted by both the employee and their employer.
A full understanding of the situation combined with their medical training allows the rehabilitation nurse to draw up a realistic and achievable plan.
But it is important to get the plan endorsed by the employee’s GP or specialist as a matter of course. This ensures that all medical aspects of the plan have been considered.
Keeping the treating practitioners informed of progress ensures cohesion of care for the employee, while at the same time providing assurances and confidence to the employer. In other words, a win-win situation for all parties concerned.
The upside for this early intervening of claims does not stop at line manager or the employee.
Any organisation that believes it can flout its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 (built on a legacy established by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995) would be well reminded that this is not the case.
In fact, extra obligations exist. For instance, the removal of the requirement for an employee to prove they had been treated less favourably than a non-disabled colleague now reads as unfavourably arising in consequence of their disability, for example sickness absence.
With unlimited settlements possibilities, getting employee absence management wrong can have massively detrimental effects on an employer’s liability insurance.
On a more positive note, getting it right can have a massively beneficial effect on group income protection premiums as claims control and experience ultimately drives rates.
Eventually, it comes down to the bottom line – insurers have to put aside reserves, when claims are submitted, to cover the expected liability for a claim.
The actuarial calculations take into account the anticipated duration of a claim. Reserves have to be put in safer investments with lower yields, increasing the initial amount of money put aside from the premium.
Releasing the insurer’s reserves by proactively supporting the successful return to work of absent employees helps to sustain insurance pricing.
Limiting return to work opportunities may leave reserves in less remunerative investments and encourage unnecessarily long claims duration, ultimately impacting on a specific organisation’s scheme costs - especially as longer absences become harder to manage back to work.
Is rehabilitation and early intervention easy? Of course not, but the rewards and satisfaction can easily make all the effort worthwhile from a human perspective.
From an organisational one, the alternative of no early intervention or work reintegration may be higher insurance premiums and greater levels of absence.
Paul Avis is sales and marketing manager at Canada Life Group Insurance
