As policymakers and employers struggle with the rising costs of healthcare, there’s a direct solution to cutting healthcare costs while not sacrificing quality of care says the Institute for Women’s Policy Research: paid sick days.
In an analysis released last week, the IWPR, a Washington, D.C.-based women’s issues think tank, said if all Americans had paid sick days, the country could save $1 billion in avoidable emergency department usage. That $1 billion includes $500 million in savings for taxpayer-funded programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
“This report is an attempt to clarify the impact of paid sick days’ access on health, especially healthcare access and utilization,” said Kevin Miller, PhD, senior research associate at IWPR and an author of the report, “Paid Sick Days and Health: Cost Savings from Reduced Emergency Department Visits.”
“Our results show that workers with paid sick days are generally healthier and are also less likely to delay medical care and less likely to utilize hospital emergency departments. We hope the findings of (the) report will raise awareness of the current public policy debate among leaders and workers in the healthcare industry,” Miller added.
Based on analysis of data from the 2008 and 2009 National Health Information Survey, the U.S. Bureau of the Census’ 2009 American Community Survey and the 2008 Medical Expenditures Panel Survey (MEPS), IWPR found that those with paid sick days self-report better health, fewer delays in medical care and few emergency department visits. Those without sick days are 40 percent more likely than those with them to delay medical care for themselves or family members.
“Our financial analysis,” said Miller, “is based on the assumption that the prevented ER visits are replaced by a primary care visit (for a list of conditions that are treated in both settings). ER visits are more expensive, on average, than are primary care visits for the same condition. Workers with paid sick days may make more doctor’s visits overall, but to the extent that those visits are for preventative care or needed care for conditions that would otherwise worsen, this could still result in reductions to long-term health spending.”
[See also: Connecticut lawmakers debate mandatory paid sick days.]
The analysis “likely underestimates the relevant cost savings,” the report notes. Potential cost savings could not be determined for multi-child families, for instance, because data only accounted for one “sample child” visiting the ED. It also doesn’t examine the medical or monetary benefits of providing more timely and non-emergency care for spouses/partners or elders and it doesn’t estimate how much could be saved in hospitalization costs for events that could have been prevented through timely treatment.
Follow HFN associate editor Stephanie Bouchard on Twitter @SBouchardHFN.