Mercer study focuses on benefits of worksite clinics

Worksite clinics have gained in popularity since the 2010 passage of the national health-care reform law, and companies say they are expanding or establishing clinics to improve employee productivity and control overall spending.

That’s according to a new survey that Mercer released on March 12.

The report is based on data from Mercer’s 2012 National Survey of Employer-Sponsored Health Plans, and a new topical survey of worksite-clinic sponsors. In May 2012, Mercer invited survey participants with onsite clinics to answer detailed follow-up questions, and 131 employers responded, the firm said.

When asked about their organizations’ perception of the success of the clinic, 87 percent of respondents rated the general success either a four or five on a scale of one to five.

Employers are most pleased with the level of employee satisfaction and clinical quality (88 percent and 85 percent, respectively). More than two-thirds (69 percent) say that the clinic has been successful in terms of employee utilization.

“They may have multiple shifts, and it’s hard for people to get to some of that diagnostic care or even some of the occupational-type things they need without going to an emergency room,” says Thomas Flynn, principal in Mercer’s upstate New York office near Rochester.

And, when firms look at the productivity return, Flynn says, “there’s a health component to that” because employees are able to get the care quickly, in an efficient nature, and in a cost-effective venue. Those factors have made worksite clinics make sense “almost immediately” for the firms that have addressed that need, he adds.

Most of the rest selected “neutral” rather than “unsuccessful,” suggesting that many employers are not able to track utilization accurately, according to the Mercer report.

When asked about important objectives in establishing a worksite clinic, employers provided reasons and rated them either four or five on a five-point scale.

For example, 82 percent cited reducing lost-employee productivity, 75 percent pointed to more control over their overall spending on health care, 73 percent cited improving management of employee-health risk and chronic conditions.

At the same time, 68 percent said improving quality and / or consistency of health care, while 65 percent of employers said both enhancing health and wellness leadership and increasing access to health care were primary objectives for launching a worksite clinic.

 In addition, 61 percent cited the management of workplace injuries and 47 percent said the clinics were a means of attracting and retaining valued employees.

In upstate New York, Flynn says Mercer has had conversations with “several” clients in examining the possibility of worksite clinics. He referenced both Oneida Ltd. and Kodak as regional firms that have used worksite clinics in the past.

“It was a convenience factor for the both company and the employee, and in some cases, it wasn't just trying to manage the care, it was to make access to care even remotely realistic within a [lengthy commute for some employees],” says Flynn.

 One third of employers do not know, or have not measured, the percentage of their organization’s annual health-care spending on their worksite clinic or clinics, the Mercer survey found.

Among those that have measured, most say it accounts for less than 2 percent or between 2 percent and 5 percent of total spending (37 percent and 36 percent, respectively). For employers with 10,000 or more employees, 61 percent report that it accounts for less than 2 percent of spending.

Return on investment

Measuring the return on investment (ROI) in a worksite clinic remains a challenge for employers, the Mercer report says.

It requires an objective methodology for calculating savings (based on valid assumptions for each credible source of savings) and an accurate accounting of the clinic’s implementation and operating costs.

However, among the survey respondents that have been able to measure ROI (about a third of all respondents), the results are encouraging. More than half reported a return of 1.5 times their investment or greater — and one quarter reported a return of at least 2.5 times their investment.

Only 12 percent say they have not yet broken even on their investment.

“We’re [Mercer] simply saying how many dollars are you going to save for each dollar that you spend. Only really 12 percent of the respondents in that survey did not have a break even, so a one dollar return in savings for every dollar that [the] investment cost them — the other 88 percent had at least a break even to more than $2.50 saved for every dollar invested,” Flynn says.

He notes that a 1.5 return would be equivalent to 150 percent return, meaning that the business spent $100,000 and saved $250,000 on that investment.

Contact Reinhardt at ereinhardt@cnybj.com