There has been massive interest about how HSUK services can reduce the emotional and financial costs of the most common cancers. The early detection of cancer and educating people how to be the first line of defence against rising incidence has so many positive benefits:

• For the individual, knowing your cancer risk and how best to manage it dramatically improves prognosis.
• For the families of individuals affected, the emotional strain is lessened.
• For employers, the costs of private medical and other health related insurances are significantly reduced as are the absence costs associated with cancer only diagnosed in the later stages.
• For insurers, early detection reduces their cancer claims liability.
• For the NHS, the costs of treating cancer diagnosed earlier reduces financial pressure on cancer budgets.
• For the government, it supports their cancer strategy, Improving Outcomes.

We all seem to spend so much time discussing the increasing costs of treating cancer whereas we should be promoting every way possible to ensure early detection and self awareness. 

But it’s more than just about the financial benefits. Cancer screening saves lives.

It’s a great business to be involved with, supporting as it does the National Strategy on Cancer, Improving Outcomes   

For details please visit www.healthscreenuk.com/news  – more from me as it happens.

I’ll be there both days, spending much of my time with the team from www.breasthealthuk.com who have just launched a new early detection service for skin cancer.

Their new website www.healthscreenuk.com goes live 22nd March.

Might see you next week.

I’ve got a sense of deja vue. I thought that was what Dame Carol and the Health Work and Wellbeing programme had been tasked with in 2005 – that’s six years ago.  I still don’t know what effect this programme has had, as no performance indicators have ever been published.

Massive figures are quoted in the DWP press release such as working age ill health costing the economy £100 billion of which £30 to 40 billion are attributed to mental health problems.

How do we arrive at these figures? We rely on small sample absence surveys such as those from the CBI and CIPD and then try and extrapolate them across employment as a whole. Let’s be honest, we just don’t know. There’s still 25% of employers who don’t even record or monitor absence.  

If the costs to the economy really are that great and the bulk of those costs fall on the public purse through sick pay, NHS treatment costs and welfare benefits, isn’t this a good time to try and grasp the real extent of the problem.

I’m wondering whether it would be possible for every employer to be legally mandated to submit an annual return on sickness absence within its organisation.  A very simple return asking for % absence rate and several of the high ranking causes should not be too onerous to complete.  This could be submitted along with any number of employee related returns already required by HMRC. 

It would ensure that all employers took absence seriously. Having to report on something and make it available for wider scrutiny really does concentrate the mind. I know this is a generalism, but poor levels of sickness absence tend to be a sign of poor management.

Wouldn’t it be great to be able to review not just the financial performance of an organistion but also its performance in health and wellbeing, because the quality of the supply of its services and or products are so closely linked. Show me an organisation with poor sickness absence and I’ll guarantee that it has a poor culture and low productivity.

If we can bring this out into the open, then the results will be twofold.

First, we won’t continually be guessing what the real figures are. We will have the right data to prioritise the right financial or clinical interventions.

Second, making employers properly accountable will drive internal improvements reducing the need to spend any more of the public purse on this than is necessary.

We don’t place enough emphasis on early detection. Breast Cancer does not just affect older women as the following statistics show:

The risk for women aged 29 and under is one in 2,000.

The risk for women aged between 30 -39 is one in 215.

The risk for women aged 40 – 49 is one in 50, yes one in 50.

The NHS Breast Screening programme does not start until women are aged 50, although there is some move to bring this down to 47.

The risk for women aged 50 to 59 is one in 22.

The risk for women aged  60 to 69 is one in 13. 

So what does this mean for employers?

Well, the risk of a female employee being diagnosed with breast cancer is higher than previously thought. 

Many employers are concerned about the rising costs of breast cancer, particularly those who provide private medical insurance.  But it’s not just about the direct treatment costs. The absence related costs and the strain on other ill health benefits are substantial.

Whilst helping their employees to reduce the risk factors through encouraging a healthier lifestyle, I can’t think of a better way for employers to address this issue than providing access to breast health awareness services and screening. 

Aside from alleviating one of the biggest fears for female employees, such low cost investment makes complete economic sense.   

If you want to discuss this for your own organisation, then please let me know.

There are going to be many cases where employees are away from work because of the conditions highlighted by the RCS. If the NHS is not going to fund their surgery, then who is?

Of course the counter argument is that there could be more cost effective ways of  treating each individual other than surgery. I’m not a clinician, but available evidence and my own experience tells me that this is no doubt true in certain circumstances.

It’s hard not to see vested interests on both sides. Surgeons will lose business as a result, whilst PCTs and in the future, GPs who commission services will be looking to make the most of their available budget.

This leaves employers in a bit of a no man’s land when it comes to understanding what the best way might be to get an affected employee back to work.  If they already provide private access to treatment then GPs will be more likey to refer for surgery as it is ‘off their books’. If employers solely rely on the NHS, then the non-surgical option will have more GP appeal.

I’m anticipating employers needing to spend more money on occupational health and second opinion services to see where they should be investing in their employees’ recovery and return to work. This need will grow in line with any deepening  division between those who commission healthcare and those who deliver it.

Click on this link to see what he has got to say and what I think. 

What do you think? Let me know.

The first is that no reference is made to benefits that an employer has chosen to self fund, e.g. Healthcare Trusts for Private Medical Care. If such self funding arrangements don’t fall within the exception, then this has major implications on the cost of the healthcare risk for employees working beyond 65. I have yet to see any clarification on this point.

Secondly, whilst not having to include over 65s in health related insurances looks on the face of it like a cap on potential liability, employers need to understand the positive impact such insurances can have in getting sick older employees back to work more cost effectively.

This will be new territory for actuaries because as far as I’m aware, there has been no research into the potential costs of insuring the employed over 65s - there has been no previous need.

But with people living longer and currently having to work longer to fund their retirement, there will be a need for such actuarial analysis so that employers can make the right funding decisions.

I’ve registered to go as there are a number of speakers I would like to hear and talk to. Hope to see you there.

As is usual at this time of year, you can’t turn a page or click on a website without being bombarded with swine flu and absence related stories. One of the current headlines is that there is a shortage of the most up to date flu vaccine. With most professional commentators saying that we are coming to the peak of the flu outbreak, isn’t it a bit late to discover this? The whole point of vaccination programmes is to carry them out well in advance of a potential virus outbreak.

Were you ahead of the game?  What are your flu related absence costs going to be come March? Has it made you consider a different approach come next autumn?