Statistics
- A 2007 randomized controlled trial found that workplace-based rehabilitation (WR) was more effective than clinic-based rehabilitation (CR) programs in returning injured workers with rotator cuff disorder to work. 71.7% of the injured workers in the WR group returned to work, while only 37.5% in the CR group returned to work. Therefore, receiving WR decreases the risk of not returning to work (full or modified duty) by 91% and not returning to full-duty work by 37.5%.[i]
- A 1997 randomized clinical trial of occupational low back pain demonstrated a rate of return to regular work that was 1.91 times greater in the occupational intervention group (occupational physician and workplace rehabilitation) than the rate in the usual care group (attending physician and clinic-based rehabilitation).[ii]
- A 2003 prospective controlled intervention study reported on the effects of workplace rehabilitation on musculoskeletal-related absenteeism. This study reported that the benefits-to-cost ratio, based on direct benefits and costs only was 6.8, which represented a cost savings of $1,195/claim. According to the Ohio BWC, indirect costs associated with a claim are approximately 4 times that of direct costs. Therefore, total cost savings (direct + indirect) was approximately $4,800/claim[iii].
- A 1997 article in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine described the benefits of an in-house physical therapy program. It reported a 34% reduction in lost workdays and a 19% reduction in medical and rehabilitation costs.[iv]
- A 2007 randomized controlled trial assessed the effectiveness of workplace intervention and reported a median time until return to full-duty for workers receiving workplace intervention was 77 days versus 104 days for workers without this intervention. Workplace intervention was effective for return to full-duty work while graded activity (clinic-based intervention) had a negative effect on return to full-duty work.[v]
- In 2007 a cohort study collected data from an on-site rehabilitation clinic over a 13-year period (n = 65,977 visits). Patient visits across all diagnoses averaged 30% less at the on-site rehabilitation clinic versus the clinic-based national average[vi].
- A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1992 evaluating the effects of physician ownership in freestanding physical therapy and rehabilitation facilities, found that both gross and net revenue per patient were 30% to 40% higher in facilities owned by referring physicians. The results indicate that utilization (number of visits) and charges per patient were higher when physical therapy and rehabilitation facilities are owned by referring physicians[vii].
References
[I] Cheng A, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of Workplace-based Rehabilitation for
Work-related Rotator Cuff Disorder. J Occup Rehabil. 2007; 17: 487–503.
[ii] Loisel P, Abenhaim L, Durand P, et al. A Population-Based, Randomized Clinical Trial on
Back Pain Management. Spine. 1997; 22: 2911–2918.
[iii] Arnetz B, Sjogren B, et al. Early Workplace Intervention for Employees With
Musculoskeletal-Related Absenteeism: A Prospective Controlled Intervention Study. J
Occup Environ Med. 2003; 45(5): 499–506.
[iv] Grayzel, E. MD, Finegan, A MD, et al. The Value of In-House Physical Therapy. J of Occup
Environ Med. 1997; 39(4): 344-346.
[v] Anema J MD, Steenstra I PhD, et al. Multidisciplinary Rehabilitation for Subacute Low
Back Pain: Graded Activity or Workplace Intervention or Both?: A Randomized Controlled
Trial. Spine. 2007; 32(3): 291-298.
[vi Joy C, et al. A 13-Year Cohort Study of Musculoskeletal Disorders Treated in an
Autoplant, On-site Physiotherapy Clinic. J Occup Rehabil. 2007; 17: 610-622.
[vii Mitchell, J PhD and Scott, E PhD. Physician Ownership of Physical Therapy Services:
Effects on Charges, Utilization, Profits, and Service Characteristics. JAMA.
1992;268(15):2055-2059.