It’s a well known fact that the lazy superhero ends up working twice as hard. The same can be said of non-super heroes (you folk). The same can also be said of those involved in the rehabilitation of an injured worker.

The easy option is invariably the one that will cost more – in dollars and in worker morale.

Different jurisdictions provide different incentives for those who manage claims. Some states are funded through private insurance arrangements and the insurer has an incentive to reduce costs as they carry the risks. In other states the public authority carries the risks, and the scheme is privately administered by claims agents.

Different schemes – which are naturally interested in saving money and reducing costs – provide different incentives for claims agents to produce outcomes. The major costs for the system are the weekly compensation wages an individual is on; the longer a person is on weekly wages the greater the cost.

When somebody has been off work for a long time, there are three ways their weekly compensation wages will stop: the first, if the person returns to work and they are back at their full hours; the second, if their claim can be terminated, or at least their weekly wage component to the claims terminated; the last, if they have a payout that settles the claim. 

In some jurisdictions the WorkCover agent incentive is substantial for cessation of weekly wages (in the order of $10,000 in some states) – it doesn’t matter whether this is by terminating the person’s claim or rehabilitating them to return to work. In fact, it’s a darn sight easier to terminate somebody’s wages than return them to work when they’ve been of work for a significant period.

Quality rehabilitation involves commitment, coordination, engagement, and a deep and connected understanding of the person’s situation. It’s hard work, and by no means always successful.

In contrast, terminating someone’s payment requires a variable level of work, not a whole lot of understanding of their situation, little in the way of engagement (in fact, disengagement is probably easier) and variable chance of success.

A certain percentage of people won’t fight the system because they don’t have either the desire for a fight, the energy for a dispute or the financial reserves to cover the costs if the case goes to court.

Is it a surprise, therefore, that we don’t see a lot of quality rehabilitation of people who’ve been off work for a long time occurring?

Where, in 2009, is the incentive to engage in quality rehabilitation? I would say there is little incentive.

Quality rehabilitation involves getting into the person’s world and working with them to help them develop realistic possibilities; ones that engage them and ones that they see are realistic. It involves goal setting, reviews, checking against where the person’s at, and identifying barriers and obstacles to return to work.

It involves identifying factors that motivate the person and working with them to further understand what is going to work for them. It involves identifying their perceived barriers to being successful and helping them to work out ways of overcoming those barriers.

A system that focuses on helping the worker with an injury not only improves the outcome of that worker, it improves the system.

Without motivation and a sense that return to work is a realistic possibility, not much is likely to be achieved for most people.

Every time a claimant is ignored, seen as a number or dealt with as a way of achieving key performance indicators, the system is damaged just a bit more.

The lazy superhero saves no-one, stars in no films and certainly does not have a line of t-shirts and lunchboxes (not to blow my own trumpet). But even when hard work doesn’t bring fame, fortune and your own catch phrase, it brings results; ones that are likely to last.