Followers of this blog will already be aware of The Sickness Absence Review. The report made various recommendations as to how to reduce long-term sickness absence in the UK, and some of those proposals are now in train with a target date for launch in 2014.

It was with this in mind that I recently listened to the In Business broadcast on BBC Radio 4 (11th April for those interested) on this very subject.

Much of this program was focused on the existing pilot schemes around the UK, which have been generally labelled the ‘Fit for Work’ schemes.

There is no doubting that these schemes have accelerated the return to work for many employees. Indeed the In Business program suggested that around 50% of 1,000 cases referred to the Leicestershire Fit for Work scheme had returned to work earlier than would otherwise be the case. Impressive figures most would agree.

But there is a key difference between the existing Fit for Work pilots, and the replacement service due to take shape in 2014.

The pilot schemes often directly financed any medical interventions needed to speed the return to work process. The replacement service is unlikely to do this, and instead will provide only ‘signposts’ to medical interventions. Or to put it another way, it’s likely that the employer, employee, or NHS will have to pick up the cost of treatment.

Let’s take the last of that list first. If the treatment is immediately available on the NHS then all well and good. Yet much of the treatment available on the NHS is subject to the dreaded waiting lists. Evidence strongly suggests that the longer someone is out of the workplace, the less likely they will return to it, so waiting on the NHS for the treatments may be unwise if the aim is to get an employee back to work quickly.

Which takes us to the private funding option. Employees will often not be in a financial position to fund the treatments themselves. It should be remembered that those referred to the service may only be receiving benefits income, so finding extra money for the treatments is going to be difficult, or impossible.

Which leaves us with the employer funding the treatment. The Government have recognised that this is a big ask (particularly in the current economic climate), and have therefore introduced a tax-break to assist employers providing this funding. The recent budget statement included the following:

“The Government will also introduce a targeted tax relief so that amounts up to a cap of £500 paid by employers on health-related interventions recommended by the service are not treated as a taxable benefit in kind. The Government will consult on implementation later in 2013.”

Which is certainly a significant step in the right direction. Yet £500 is not a lot in treatment terms, and this approach still expects the employer to part with the cash up front, before eventually receiving (a presumably partial) return of some of that spend at a later date. So this moves into the realms of a business decision for each and every case. And business decisions often take time to approve and action. All of which may delay treatment (and therefore a return to work) further.

So, whilst these proposals are very welcome, it remains to be seen if the new service will deliver equally, or even comparable, results to that of the pilot projects. Much will depend on the outcome of the consultation, when both employers and the employee benefits community will better understand how and where the tax-breaks actually apply.

As ever, we will aim to keep you up to speed on this one as the story develops.

Best regards

Steve