A 16-Month Injury Analysis Comparing the New Hire IPCS Isokinetic Evaluation to a Control Group of New Hire Applicants For A National Network of Retail Distribution Centers
Executive Summary
|
The analysis of the injury data clearly demonstrates that the IPCS physical capability
|
The following comparative study was performed to evaluate the impact of the IPCS new hire
physical capability evaluation program on reducing both the frequency and severity of
injuries.
-
The IPCS isokinetic physical capability evaluation program was implemented at the
seven Distribution Centers June 1, 2004. -
The comparison included two groups of new hire applicants. Those individuals hired
from February 1, 2003 through May 31, 2004 (Not Tested Group) and those hired
from June 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005 (IPCS Tested Group). -
No consistent physical capability evaluation program was in place for the Not Tested
Group. The IPCS Tested Group underwent an isokinetic knee-shoulder evaluation
as their physical capability evaluation. -
For the IPCS Tested Group, 1,258 new hire applicants were evaluated and
recommended for hire. During the Not Tested Group time frame, approximately
1,300 new hires were hired. -
All individuals included in the analysis worked no more than 486 days. This number
represents the 16-month period for each group and provides a means to equalize the
two groups based on same length of employment. -
If the Not Tested Group had the IPCS program in place for its 16-month period, the
net savings minus the cost of implementing the program would have been $512,973.
The chart below summaries the percent reductions in the Incident Rate of Injury (70.5%), in
Total Costs for All injuries (79%) and the percent reduction for the average cost of All injuries
(38.%) and Exertion injuries (69.7%) as a result of the IPCS program.
Results
The number of new hires for the Not Tested Group was estimated to be 1,300 individuals.
The number of new hires for the IPCS Tested Group and recommended for hire was 1,258.
Chart 1 shows the total number of injuries that occurred for the IPCS Tested Group versus
the Not Tested Group for the same time period – less than 16-months of employment. The
number of injuries is also shown for exertion only. The absolute numbers show that the
number of injuries for IPCS Tested Group was dramatically less in comparison to the Not
Tested Group for all injuries and exertion injuries.
Expressing the frequency of injury relative to the number of individuals hired (incident rate)
for each group shows the incident rate of injury for the IPCS Tested Group was about 3-
times less than the Not Tested Group (Chart 2) for all injuries and exertion injuries.
Total Costs for All and Exertion Injuries
Chart 3 compares the Incurred Costs for all injuries and exertion injuries for the IPCS
Tested Group to the Not Tested Group. The Incurred Costs for the Not Tested
Group was nearly 5 times greater than the IPCS Tested Group for all injuries. The
Incurred Cost for exertion injuries was nearly 10 times greater for the Not Tested Group
compared to the IPCS Tested Group.
The average cost per injury was calculated as shown in Chart 4. When comparing the
average cost per injury for all injuries, the IPCS Tested Group was about 1.6 times less than
the Not Tested Group. For exertion injuries, the average cost for the IPCS Tested Group
was 3.3 times less than the Not Tested Group.
To calculate the projected savings for the 16-month time frame identified, the average cost
per injury for all injuries for the IPCS group ($2,989) was multiplied times the incident rate of
injury for the IPCS group (4.6%), which equaled the Projected Costs on Chart 5. Thus, the
Projected Costs on Chart 5 shows what the cost should have been if the IPCS program was
in place during the 16-month period prior to implementing the IPCS program.
The Estimated Cost of the IPCS program for the Not Tested Group was calculated by
multiplying the estimated new hires for the Not Tested Group (1,300) plus 20% to account for
the rejection rate times the cost of the IPCS test.
The Projected Savings is calculated by adding the Projected Cost and Estimated Cost of the
IPCS Test and then subtracting this sum from the Actual Cost for the Not Tested Group from
Chart 3. The Projected Savings is $512,973 had the IPCS program been in place for the Not Tested Group. This represents a 62% reduction in the Actual Incurred Costs.
Added Health Benefit
The obese employee costs a company not only more money in direct costs but much more in
terms of indirect costs – loss of productivity, added training and replacement costs and so
on. Because of obesity, the available pool of healthy and fit workers to perform physically
demanding jobs is rapidly shrinking. When IPCS performs a new hire evaluation, body
weight is a factor when determining whether a new hire applicant is recommended or not
recommended for hire.
Chart 6 shows the body weight of males who were not recommended weighed 49 pounds
more than the males recommended and the females not recommended weighed 25 pounds
more than those females not recommended.
The height in inches for the new hire applicant tested by IPCS during the 16-month period
was the nearly the same for both the recommended and not recommended groups.
Body Mass Index
Chart 7 clearly shows that the males tested by IPCS and not recommended have a BMI of
34.7, which puts them in the obese category. The males recommended have a BMI of 27.1,
which classifies them as overweight. The females not recommended are overweight with a
BMI of 29.2; whereas the females recommended are considered healthy.
The next chart shows the number of new hire applicants in 2005 according that fell into the
various BMI categories. Of the 1,322 applicants, 379 of the applicants were obese or 28.1
percent.
In addition to the savings due to the reduction in the frequency and severity of injury, the
obesity related savings is $154,368 as shown in Chart 9. This calculation is based on
reviewing the BMI results of those not recommended and applying the following cost savings:
• Current research clearly shows the obese worker cost a company $1,432 more per
year in added healthcare costs.
• Current research clearly shows the obese worker cost a company $377 more per
year in absenteeism and presenteeism cost compared to that of the normal weight
and overweight worker.
Therefore, the total savings that this company experienced in 16-months is $667,341. This represents a nearly $4 return for every $1 invested.
Conclusion
The analysis of the injury data clearly demonstrates that the IPCS physical capability
assessment program had a dramatic impact on reducing both the frequency and severity of
injury as measured by incident rate, total cost of injuries and average cost per injury in
comparison to the Not Tested Group. The combination of reducing the frequency of injury
and reducing the average cost per injury resulted in greater savings and return-oninvestment for company with the IPCS program.
Further, The IPCS program is contributing to the Company’s effort to control healthcare costs
by recommending healthier individuals, which in the long run will bring added cost benefits to
the company.
Body mass index (BMI) has been used for many years in research to determine obesity, but
recently it has gained in popularity with the consumer because of so much emphasis on
obesity. Many web sites have BMI calculators so individuals can determine their BMI scores.
Usually scores of less than 25 are considered healthy. A BMI of 25 or greater but less than
30 is considered overweight. A BMI score of 30 or higher is considered obese and 40 and
greater is morbidly obese. BMI uses both height and weight in its calculation.Incident Rate of Injury
Find out more about achieving & maintaining a healthy body weight! Visit our sister sites: HealthyBodyWeight.com & MoveItLoseItLiveHealthy
