Post Offer Employment Testing

Pre Employment Testing vs. Post Offer Testing

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Fri, 22 Jan 2016 00:00:00 GMT

Increased regulation, corporate risk control objectives, and employee satisfaction and retention are all factors driving employee acquisition protocols used by Human Resource (HR) departments. When it comes to employee satisfaction and retention, maintaining a safe and productive work environment is a common element of HR success that begins with determining a prospective employee’s fitness for a particular job or role. No level of de facto safeguard is likely to be as effective in protecting your employees’ well-being as pro-actively ensuring their physical capabilities are in line with the physical demands of the job. Moreover, with zealous litigators seemingly running amuck in the US labor markets, it is sound business practice to use the best available candidate assessment and selection methods.

There are several “flavors” of physical assessment available to employers when screening prospective employees. The differences between them affect not only the effectiveness of the screening process in protecting employers and employees, but also the usefulness of the data each assessment produces. Let’s examine two protocols for candidate physical testing: pre-employment testing and post-offer testing.

Pre-employment testing might also be called “traditional” physical screening. The assessment is done after a candidate applies for a job and may be used by the employer to narrow the field of candidates in consideration for a job offer. This is due, in part, to the nature of the testing. Pre-employment testing is a non-medical test with no medical questions or history and thus does not capture any data that might be used as an illegal hiring bias.

In contrast, post-offer testing occurs only after a candidate has been offered a job contingent on satisfactorily passing the assessment. This type of test can and usually does include elements considered medical in nature including a medical history work up. While this is a key difference between the testing types from an HR perspective, the relative value of these testing types comes from the quality and utility of the testing results.

Post-offer testing provides a far richer data set than traditional pre-employment testing, including a medical history and pre-existing condition catalog that is helpful in assessing appropriate workers compensation responsibility after an on-the-job injury. A post-offer Physical Capacity Profile® (PCP) test measures body fat and weight, range of motion, limb strength, lift strength and more. Unlike a go / no-go result yielded from pre-employment testing for a particular job, a complete PCP determines quantitative physical limits that are correlated with Department of Labor strength categories and is compliant with ADA, EEOC and HIPAA.

Because the assessment data is quantitative, it can be used as a baseline for comparison to any future post-injury assessment. Likewise, test data is benchmarked against AMA guidelines. These test attributes are compelling in workers compensation cases where a comparison of pre and post injury impairments is the determining factor in claim awards.

So how do these testing differences translate into realizable benefits to an employer considering what method to use? In some cases, post-offer testing might be more expensive because, as a medical test, it requires medical staff to perform. However, the cost savings an employer generally realizes from improved matching of candidates to job requirements far exceed any testing costs. Multiple studies[1],[2] have shown drastic reductions in job-related injuries when employees are matched to job requirements through PCP test results. Those reductions not only prevent workers compensation claims, they increase the number of healthy work days across an organization. Similarly, reductions in workers compensation claim payouts are realized when pre-injury impairments are catalogued before an injury occurs. This limits workers compensation to covering only impairments related to on-the-job injuries. In addition, accurate measurement of whether an impairment was job-related is a significant factor in preventing experience rate modification for insurance premiums. In one study2, average annual workers compensation expenses were shown to decline 36% once PCP post-offer testing was instituted as a candidate assessment method.

Beyond monetary considerations, employers can use post-offer PCP testing to create a safer, more effective workforce that is matched to the jobs at hand. For more information on how to utilize post-offer Physical Capacity Profile® testing in your organization, contact us at 785-825-4444.

[1]Harbin G, Olson J, Post-Offer, Pre-Placement Testing in Industry , American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2005, 47(4):303
[2]Harbin G, et al., Shoulder injury reduction with post-offer testing , Work, 2011, 39(2):113-123

Dynamic and Isometric vs. Job Simulation Post-offer or Pre-placement Testing

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 GMT

It is generally accepted that physical testing of prospective employees has merit in preventing injuries in physically demanding jobs. However, not all testing methods produce equally effective results. This article compares two common testing protocols; dynamic and isometric strength testing and job simulation testing.

Job simulation testing aims to validate or invalidate a candidate’s physical suitability for a job through tests designed to mimic working conditions. For example, a candidate may be asked to lift a specified weight to a specified height a specified number of times. These tests do not quantitatively measure lifting strength or any other anthropometric attribute of an individual, but rather they provide a binary “pass” or “fail” determination for a particular job.

In contrast, dynamic (limb or muscle exerting force while in motion) and isometric (limb or muscle exerting force while stationary) strength testing yields a quantified strength capacity that may be applied to a wide array of jobs and be correlated to strength categories defined by the U.S Department of Labor. This method of strength test is most often done bilaterally for comparative purposes and is coupled with other anthropometric assessments like joint range of motion to produce a complete Physical Capacity Profile® (PCP) for an individual.

Some limitations of job simulation testing are apparent merely from the descriptions of these testing protocols. Because the data only reflects a pass/fail for a particular simulation, the test results can be only narrowly applied to the job or jobs that were simulated. Retesting is often required for job or job requirement changes. Likewise, the test design is frequently subjective, without established standards, which can lead to dispute and legal entanglements in the event of employee injury. In fact, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) successfully prosecuted a discrimination lawsuit against Dial Corporation’s use of job simulation strength testing, awarding $3.39 million to the plaintiffs (#3-02-CV-10109).

Job simulation data also lacks substantive quantification to serve as a comparative baseline with any future assessments such as fitness-to-return-to-work testing or workers compensation claim dispositioning after an injury.

Physical capacity profiling with dynamic/isometric strength tests has none of these drawbacks. The testing produces a continuum of data suitable for establishing a comparable physical baseline not only for strength in various areas of the body, but also for range of motion or any preexisting physical impairments. Uncovering and quantifying existing impairments is a specific feature of the PCP testing approach that adds tremendous value to the results. If a prospective employee has limited range of motion in the back, for example, the employer will not be erroneously liable for that preexisting level of impairment should that employee later sustain a work related injury to the back.

Moreover, PCP testing follows AMA guidelines and correlates to strength standards catalogued by the U.S. Department of Labor. This test method has been audited several times by the EEOC with no adverse findings validating that the elimination of subjectivity in the test design and results interpretation makes PCP testing a far better risk management tool for employers. Plus, the richness of data makes the test results “portable” from one job to another as long as the data shows adequate capacity for the job requirements – reducing test/retest requirements over time.

The most impactful differences between job simulation testing and dynamic/isometric testing come when they are applied in real corporations in actual working scenarios. While job simulation has been shown to make 3x reductions in injury rates when used to match employees to their job requirements [1] , PCP testing incorporating quantitative dynamic/isometric strength assessment has been shown to make up to 10-100x reductions in injury rates [2] . Such an effective injury prevention mechanism produces real cost savings in the form of reduced workers compensation claim payouts (both frequency and amount), reduction in lost work days, protection against experience rate modifications for insurance premiums, reduced legal expenses and more.

In summary, physical testing improves the work environment for both the employer and the employee, and dynamic/isometric strength testing, coupled with other anthropometric measurements such as those in a Physical Capacity Profile®, is a more effective test method than job simulation testing for protecting employees from injury and reducing costs for employers.

To learn more about bringing Physical Capacity Profile® testing into your organization or becoming a PCP testing center, please contact Occupational Performance Corp. at 785-825-4444 or http://www.pcpworks.com .

[1] Keyserling WM, et al., Isometric strength testing as a means of controlling medical incidents on strenuous jobs, J Occup Med. 1980 May;22(5):332-6

[2] Harbin G, Olson J, Post-Offer, Pre-Placement Testing in Industry , American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2005, 47(4):303

How To Hire Physically Abled Employees

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Utilize Post-Offer Physical Evaluation Testing to Ensure Proper Job Matching

With the job market tightening as the nation sees a resurgence in the economy, human resource managers are faced with shrinking candidate pools and greater competition. Under these conditions, employers no longer have the latitude to make hiring mistakes, especially for skilled labor positions. Organizations that conduct post-offer physical evaluations are able to acquire the job market’s most valuable candidates and properly place them within the organization. Not only does proper initial placement mitigate turnover, it ensures that the best talent available in the marketplace can find an ideal position within your organization – and not with your competition.

After years of recession, unemployment in the United States decreased to 5.6 percent as of January 2015. According to the business forecasting group Kiplinger , the labor market will only continue to tighten. In January 2015, companies hired 257,000 more workers, with particular competitive gains in health care, food service, retail, and construction. With the job pool shrinking in such physically demanding industries, every job candidate that demonstrates a high level of talent is a valuable commodity. For employers adding a post-offer physical evaluation test into their new hire process, the Physical Capacity Profile® Test provides objective, industry-standard data to ensure proper job matching.

Physical Capacity Profile® (PCP) Test

The PCP Test provides a comprehensive evaluation of a candidate’s physical fitness, objectively-measured against the following industry-standard job level descriptions:

Level 1 : Sedentary Work - Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally and/or a negligible amount of force frequently. Involves sitting most of the time, but may involve walking or standing.

Level 2 : Light Work - Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 10 pounds of force frequently. Requires walking or standing to a significant degree: or requires sitting most of the time but entails pushing and/or pulling of arm or leg controls.

Level 3 : Medium Work - Exerting 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 10 to 25 pounds of force frequently, and/or greater than negligible up to 10 pounds of force constantly.

Level 4 : Heavy Work - Exerting 50 to 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or 25 to 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or 10 to 20 pounds of force constantly.

Level 5 : Very Heavy Work - Exerting in excess of 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or in excess of 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or in excess of 20 pounds of force constantly.

The PCP test requires the applicant to complete a variety of repeated physical activities that are captured electronically and measured objectively against industry-standard criteria outlined by the American Medical Association (AMA). The computer-generated output report summarizes what job level the candidate applied for, and what level he/she demonstrated during the test.

If, for example, a candidate applies for a level four position, during the PCP test, they will need to demonstrate the ability to exert 50 to 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or 25 to 50 pounds of force frequently. The PCP test’s objective electronically captured data will indicate unequivocally whether the candidate meets these criteria. If they do, they will receive a numerical score of 4.0 or higher. By providing a numerical ranking on the job-level continuum, an employer can properly match a valuable candidate to a position within the organization.

There are two other commonly used methods of physical evaluation testing: a physician’s exam, and a job task simulation. While these methods can provide useful information about the candidate’s physical abilities, they lack objective data that can be used to identify where the candidate falls on the job level continuum.

The Physician’s exam aims to answer one basic question: Is this candidate healthy enough for manual labor. Physician’s exams are typically treated as pass/fail tests, with the ultimate determinations being based on the subjective opinion of the reviewer. The exam results do not indicate what level of physical labor a candidate can perform, nor where he/she is best suited within an organization.

A job task simulation is a tailored exam conducted by a medical professional that attempts to simulate the type of physical activity the individual will be doing if hired for a specific position. Like a physician’s exam, a job task simulation is reviewed on a pass/fail basis or a graded scale determined subjectively by the reviewer. The subjective evaluation standards of physical exams and job task simulations can result in valuable candidates being erroneously deemed as not fit for hire, at a loss to the employer.

Too often valuable job candidates are left to the competition when the new hire process fails to properly understand the candidate’s physical abilities. The PCP test does more than answer the question: “Is this candidate fit for this position?” Rather, the PCP answers the question: “Where is this valuable candidate best suited within our organization?” As the labor-market continues to shrink, incorporating PCP testing into your new hire strategy ensures that your organization is staffed with the best available talent, in positions that maximize their abilities.

Source: http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/business/T019-S000-kiplinger-s-economic-outlooks/

Hiring Mistakes Employers Make

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Fri, 03 Apr 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Post-Offer Physical Evaluations Limit Workers’ Compensation Plan Cost Exposure

Physical Capacity Profile® (PCP) Test

The PCP Test provides a comprehensive evaluation of a candidate’s physical fitness, objectively-measured against the following industry-standard job level descriptions:

Level 1 : Sedentary Work. Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally and/or a negligible amount of force frequently. Involves sitting most of the time, but may involve walking or standing.

Level 2 : Light Work. Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 10 pounds of force frequently. Requires walking or standing to a significant degree: or requires sitting most of the time but entails pushing and/or pulling of arm or leg controls.

Level 3 : Medium Work. Exerting 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 10 to 25 pounds of force frequently, and/or greater than negligible up to 10 pounds of force constantly.

Level 4 : Heavy Work. Exerting 50 to 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or 25 to 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or 10 to 20 pounds of force constantly.

Level 5 : Very Heavy Work. Exerting in excess of 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or in excess of 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or in excess of 20 pounds of force constantly.

Source: http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/business/T019-S000-kiplinger-s-economic-outlooks/

How To Reduce Employee Turnover

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Mon, 23 Feb 2015 00:00:00 GMT

Physical Capacity Tests Ensure Your New Hire is Fit for the Job

In today’s fast-paced marketplace, recruiting, training, and retaining a qualified and capable workforce is an essential element of every human resource manager’s corporate strategy. In reality, attrition is a bottom-line cost that employers are struggling to mitigate. For organizations offering positions that are predicated on the employee’s ability to complete specific physical activities, making an employment offer contingent on a physical evaluation can be a successful strategy for ensuring that new hires are literally fit for the job.

The cost to continually replace new hires is multifaceted. It encompasses the cost to not only hire and train a replacement, but likely includes the cost of paid overtime to tenured employees who are filling in the gaps in the staffing model. Factoring in the cost of recruiting, interviewing, hiring, training and initial reduced productivity, the cost of turnover to an employer is significant, and is estimated at:

30 – 50 percent of salary for entry-level hires
150 percent of salary for mid-level hires
400 percent for high-level hires

Proper staffing of physically qualified individuals can help mitigate these financial loses.

Every candidate wants to maximize their potential for hire by testifying to their ability to meet the job requirements, but when successfully executing in a position is dependent upon the individual’s physical capabilities, employers must obtain more than a verbal commitment from the candidate that they are prepared for the job. The obtainment of objective medical data that validates that the individual meets predetermined physical requirements can be an essential element of an organization’s staffing strategy. While there are various ways to obtain such data, not all methods will be truly indicative of an employee’s ability to complete the specific physical requirements of the position.

Physician’s Exam

Employers considering requiring a physician’s exam as a job offer contingency should be aware of the risks involved in selecting this methodology. Physician’s exams are typically treated as pass/fail scenarios, with the ultimate determinations being based on the subjective opinion of the reviewer. Depending on who is conducting the test, a physician’s assistant, or a physician, the final determination could vary.

In addition, while a physician’s exam will likely include such biometric data as the individual’s body mass index (BMI), age, and blood pressure, it will not directly address the individual’s aptitude for the specific physical movements required of the job. Can the individual lift twenty pounds of inventory repeatedly in the warehouse? Can they push a two hundred pound patient in a wheelchair through a hospital corridor? While helpful to know some of the elements that will be recorded by a physician’s exam, the final report simply cannot validate for an employer if the individual is physically able to perform the job.

Job Task Simulation

A job task simulation is a tailored exam, conducted by a medical professional, which attempts to simulate the type of physical behavior the individual will be doing in the work environment. Here, an employer can now see if the individual can lift twenty pounds of inventory, or push the weight of a patient in a wheelchair. Still, a job task simulation does not provide a comprehensive evaluation, as it lacks data relative to historical risk factors. A job task simulation will not necessarily require the individual to disclose the torn rotator cuff they rehabilitated four years ago, or their chronic lower back pain. Like a physician’s exam, a job task simulation is still reviewed on a pass/fail basis or a graded scale determined subjectively by the reviewer. It offers no baseline, and no maximum measurements for post-rehabilitation evaluation of a patient’s progress. Finally, the one-time simulation does not aim to measure an individual’s ability to reproduce an activity to identify inconsistencies of effort. While an individual may be able to demonstrate his/her physical ability to perform a specific task for a finite period of time during a one-time simulation, an employer is still at risk that a preexisting impairment could prove debilitating over time and lead to the employee voluntarily terminating.

Physical Capacity Profile ® (PCP) Testing

A PCP is the most comprehensive methodology for ensuring an employee can physically perform a job long term. The PCP test combines the valuable aspects of the physician’s exam, with the physical activity of the job task simulation, and adds in a third necessary component: electronically captured data with third party analysis and reporting based on industry standard impairment guidelines. PCP testing will ultimately deliver to an employer a three-page report with reliable historical medical information, current physical ability data, and impairment risk factors. More specifically:

The first page of the report is designed to validate for the employer if the individual meets the physical demands of the job.
The second page of the report documents any preexisting physical impairments per objective, and measureable guidelines established by the American Medical Association (AMA), as identified through electronically captured data and not a subjective evaluation.
The third page of the report reflects the individual’s strength and ability test result values. In the event of a workplace injury, this data will verify for the treating medical team where the individual’s baseline capabilities were prior to the injury to ensure that the goal of any rehabilitation aims to return the employee to their physical ability level prior to their workplace injury.

Every employer should have a strategy for mitigating employee turnover. With proper physical capacity testing as an essential element of a comprehensive post offer evaluation strategy, organizations can be assured that their new hires stand the best ability to become valued long-term assets to the organization.

Companies Reduce Injuries Hiring Physically Abled Persons

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Thu, 17 Jul 2014 00:00:00 GMT

Physical Capacity Tests Ensure Your New Hire is Fit for the Job

Any corporation requiring employees to physically exert themselves as part of their job responsibilities knows that protecting both employees and the company is critical. Physical capabilities of employees and on-the-job safety are ever present concerns when you consider the incidence of work related injuries. According to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [1] , the incidence of work-related muscular-skeletal injury per 10,000 employees in 2012 was,

Nature of injury	Number	Incidence / 10,000	Median Days away from work
Fractures	84,700	8.2	30
Sprains, strains, tears	443,560	43.2	10
Amputations	5,280	0.5	26
Punctures (except gunshot)	16,770	1.6	3
Bruises, contusions	97,540	9.5	5
Multiple traumatic injuries	38,190	3.7	10
With sprains	16,820	1.6	9
With fractures	7,510	0.7	31
Soreness, pain	171,930	16.7	9
Carpal tunnel syndrome	8,610	0.8	30
Tendonitis (other or unspecified)	3,020	0.3	15
All other natures	182,940	17.8	8

Table 1 – U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2012 Injury Incidence Rates

Statistics like these have led businesses and associations to pre-screen potential employees to ensure physical capability before they undertake a physical job. Since World War II, such screening has typically taken the form of pre-employment testing wherein a candidate must successfully perform a go / no-go strength test intended to represent the demands of the job. More recently, however, post-offer Physical Capacity Profile® testing has been developed to more thoroughly assess potential workers and better align job candidates with job requirements - and companies are seeing tangible benefits from hiring physically able persons.

The Physical Capacity Profile® (PCP) test method breaks from the traditional binary strength testing by starting with a medical history. Because the protocol includes evaluations that are considered “medical” by law, it is performed by medical personnel and only after a job offer has been made. The latter characteristic prevents any hiring bias based on medical data.

Then, PCP testing focuses on establishing the physical capacity of an individual through testing of limb strength, lifting strength, range of motion and other anthropometric measures. The profile can then be correlated to Department of Labor strength categories, expanding its applicability not only to a specific job, but to any job in the appropriate category.

Level 1 | Sedentary Work - Exerting up to 10 pounds of force occasionally, and/or a negligible amount of force frequently. Involves sitting most of the time, but may involve walking or standing.

Level 2 | Light Work - Exerting up to 20 pounds of force occasionally, and/or up to 10 pounds of force frequently. Required walking or standing to a significant degree; or requires sitting most of the time but entails pushing and/or pulling of arm or leg controls.

Level 3 | Medium Work - Exerting 20 to 50 pounds of force occasionally, and/or 10 to 25 pounds of force frequently, and/or greater than negligible up to 10 pounds of force constantly.

Level 4 | Heavy Work - Exerting 50 to 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or 25 to 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or 10 to 20 pounds of force constantly.

Level 5 | Very Heavy Work - Exerting in excess of 100 pounds of force occasionally, and/or in excess of 50 pounds of force frequently, and/or in excess of 20 pounds of force constantly.

Table 2 – U.S. Dept. of Labor Strength Categories

Studies have shown that utilization of PCP testing to match workers to the appropriate physical job demands drastically reduces the rate of work-related injuries and in turn positively impacts company’s bottom lines. Typical savings realized after PCP test implementation include fewer missed work days from work-related injury, lower claims costs for workers compensation payouts, decrease in experience rate modifications for insurance premiums, plus lower legal expenses and higher defense success rates in workers compensation cases.

In one study [1] , the savings were catalogued for a metropolitan public school district comparing relevant costs before and after Physical Capacity Profile® testing was integrated into the employee hiring process. The untested [2] control group numbered 497 employees while the tested and hired group was comprised of 248 employees (candidates who failed the testing were not hired). The study results showed that the number of injuries was 0 for the tested group versus 19 for the untested group. This reduction in injuries yielded a workers compensation cost reduction of approximately $402,000 over 3 years following PCP adoption. The associated testing costs were $28,600 resulting in a net 3 year savings of over $373,000 for the district. That’s $14 in savings for every $1 spent.

A similar published study looks at PCP testing in the food production industry [3] . In this study, 2473 employees at a food production facility underwent PCP testing. Over a period of 3 years, the work-related injury rates were catalogued and separated into two groups: those for people whose PCP results demonstrated a match to the physical requirement of their job and those whose PCP test results indicated they were not physically matched (did not have adequate physical capacity) to their job requirements. The study data shows the percentage of workers in the unmatched group suffering lumbar spine and shoulder injuries was 10x that of the matched group.

Phase 2 of the same study assessed the financial impact of matching 100% of the employee hires to physical job requirements using PCP testing at an electrical equipment manufacturer. Briefly summarizing the results, sprain and strain related costs dropped from $70,000/yr. to $10,000/yr. while workers compensation premium costs dropped $76,000/yr. over the 5 years after PCP test adoption. Moreover, lost work days in the 3 years following PCP adoption fell from 700 days to 7 days, a staggering 99% reduction. All related factors considered, the combined cost savings for the company was approximately $690 per employee tested.

It is clear that hiring physically able persons provides companies with a financially meaningful way to control insurance and injury related costs producing direct bottom-line improvements, and Physical Capacity Profile® testing is a proven protocol for ensuring proper assessment of a person’s capacity to safely perform physically demanding job functions.

For more information about the studies referenced in this article or to learn more about how your organization can take advantage of Physical Capacity Profile® testing or become a testing center, please contact Occupational Performance Corp. at 785-825-4444 or http://www.pcpworks.com .

[1] http://www.bls.gov/news.release/osh2.t05.htm

[2] Harbin G, et al., Shoulder injury reduction with post-offer testing , Work, 2011, 39(2):113-123

[3] In this context, “untested” refers only to the PCP testing. Other testing such as drug screening was still performed.

[4] Harbin G, Olson J, Post-Offer, Pre-Placement Testing in Industry , American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 2005, 47(4):303

Insurance Companies Support Post Offer Pre Employment Testing

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:00:00 GMT

Why Do Insurance Companies Support the Physical Capacity Profile® Testing System

Physical testing of prospective employees is a commonplace practice in the United States for a variety of job roles. But did you know there are several methods of testing, with varying degrees of effectiveness, which companies can use to assess the physical condition of potential new hires? More importantly, are you aware of key differences between pre-employment and post-offer employment testing to which employers and especially insurance companies are paying close attention?

Traditional pre-employment testing is non-medical and is focused almost exclusively on making a yes/no determination about whether a candidate can physically do a job based on a general assessment. Post-offer pre employment testing, specifically the Physical Capacity Profile® test, provides a more comprehensive picture of a prospective employee’s physical capabilities and any existing impairments.

So why do insurance companies support post-offer Physical Capacity Profile (PCP) testing? The answer is rooted in study data and real world case studies of the PCP test put into action.

For insurance companies, PCP testing can mean increased prevention of injury in the workplace. A study published in the American Journal of Industrial Medicine compared traditional pre-employment testing with a physical capacity profiling protocol for post-offer testing in the food production industry. The reported impact of physical capacity testing on work-related injury rate was staggering. The data showed anywhere from 2 to 100 times fewer injuries reported among the workers who were matched to the right jobs through physical capacity testing.

In addition to reducing the occurrence of workplace injury, PCP testing leads to dramatic cost savings. By setting a pre-employment physical capability and impairment baseline profile, PCP testing enables insurers to quantitatively assess the amount of impairment caused by a subsequent, on-the-job injury. This measurement not only affects the portion of claims for which the employer and insurance companies are responsible, the impairment baseline data can be referenced to speed an employee’s clearance to return to work.

Consider this example of the Kansas Building Industry Workers’ Compensation Fund (KBIWCF). After a worker sustained a wrist injury requiring two surgical procedures, the assessing physician noted a 17% permanent impairment to the patient’s right wrist which would result in a nearly $13,500 claim payout. However, after reviewing the Physical Capacity Profile of the patient, the physician revised the assessment to 7% impairment due to a pre-existing 10% deficiency in that same wrist prior to employment. This revision saved KBIWCF from paying almost $7,900 in claims that were not a result of the worker’s injury.

As contentious as healthcare can be in this age of litigation, PCP testing can be a shield for insurance companies and employers against overzealous claimants and attorneys. One user of PCP testing reported a first-year savings of $75,000 in litigation costs alone. Over a 7 year period during which this insurer tracked use of the PCP test, they settled 100% of cases where PCP test data was available.

It is clear that PCP testing has a direct and positive impact on an insurer’s bottom line and simultaneously reduces injury risk for employees. It produces a hard to generate win-win scenario in the insurance business. But there are other benefits smart insurance companies garner from supporting PCP testing. For instance, accumulated savings for employers make insurers more competitive in the marketplace. Similarly, the reduction in injury occurrence protects client’s experience modifications. Keeping satisfied customers is a big win for insurers.

Keeping other risks low for customers is also in the best interest of insurers. In 2005, a federal district court ordered Dial Corporation to pay $3.4 million to settle charges by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that Dial had used discriminatory physical testing practices for jobs in their Armour production facility. The pre-employment test was found to discriminate against women who failed the test 40% of the time compared to almost 0% for men. Unlike post-offer PCP testing, Dial’s pre-employment testing relied on a single lifting test and did not place candidates in standard Department of Labor strength categories. Physical Capacity Profile® testing has successfully passed audits by EEOC in many companies as an unbiased testing protocol, furthering support of the approach by insurance companies.

How does PCP testing achieve such drastically different results than traditional pre-employment screening? First, PCP testing measures capacity across multiple fitness, strength, anthropometric and lifting standards, not binary pass/fail criteria. This produces a far richer set of data that can be used to match employees to jobs with appropriate physical requirements and to set a baseline of capability or impairment for future comparison. The post-offer employment testing is benchmarked against established AMA guidelines, lending further credibility to the data as valid physical assessment both pre- and post-injury. This comparative quality of the data provides more accuracy and reliability for workers compensation and other insurance claim determination when contrasted with only post-injury testing.

Post Offer Employment Testing Decrease Job-Related Injuries

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Mon, 24 Feb 2014 00:00:00 GMT

The hiring process continues to remain a near notion of guesswork when attempting to find the right candidate. With the implementation of drug testing and education requirements, opportunities in certain fields have not so much become limited, as much as they have become more specified. A recent study conducted by Gary L. Harbin, of Salina Sports Medicine Clinic and the University of Kansas School of Medicine in Kansas City ; Catherine Shenoy, of the University of Kansas School of Business in Lawrence; Amy Garcia, of the Wichita Publics Schools in Wichita, Kan.; and John C. Olson, of Salina Sports Medicine Clinic, showed post-offer functional capacity evaluation (FCE) testing within labor intensive industries will more accurately define the job requirements, while also enabling employers to more accurately hire qualified candidates. This has resulted in statistically significant lower injuries to employees, a safer work environment and of course concomitantly lower medical expenses for the employer.

According to a separate study by Harbin and Olson in 2005, one-third of the nation’s workers are required to exert strenuous force in their daily jobs. This requirement is also the direct cause of various injuries, resulting in high-medical costs for companies, financial and mental stress on employees, along with the increased potential for permanent impairment of workers.

This recent study, conducted among the Wichita Public Schools custodial staff, studied the effect of implementing a post-offer test for hired employees, which included a physical capacity test with direct correlation to the job requirements. Rather than focus on multiple work-related injuries, the research team chose to concentrate on shoulder injuries due to the school district indicating these injuries had accounted for more than 50 percent of the work-related injury costs during fiscal years 2001 and 2002.

There were two control groups studied. The first group included 497 employees hired between 1999 and 2001, when the school district had no post offer testing; and the second group included 402 applicants of whom 248 were hired between 2002 and 2004 after passing the post-offer test. In that second group, 39 percent proved incapable of handling the physical demands of the custodial job and were not hired.

The 248 employees (61 percent), who underwent the post-offer test and demonstrated the ability to meet the custodial job requirements, suffered zero shoulder injuries throughout all three years. The employees, who were not required to be tested, suffered 19 shoulder injuries from years 1999 to 2004. More than 25 percent of those injuries were sustained in their respective first year of employment

After implementing post offer employment testing in the Wichita school district, the medical costs from shoulder injuries significantly decreased, and between the two groups, the control group’s average cost of medical claims was seven times higher than those of the test group.

Annually, for the first four years before implementing the post-offer test, the average claims cost totaled $367,998. This number drastically dropped by $133,994 to $234,004 after implementing the test. This new testing program lowered the custodial staff medical costs from 60 percent to 25 percent of the school district’s total workers’ compensation costs.

This study suggests, that since there were no shoulder injuries in the custodial workers who passed the post-offer test, those of the control group who were injured most likely sustained shoulder injuries due to their inability to physically perform their duties. Therefore, assessing an individual’s ability to physically meet the requirements of a labor-intensive job will not only help ensure workers remain healthy and safe, but also could substantially save a company financially in medical costs and ensure employers hire the most qualified candidates.

Physical Capacity Test: What’s The Impact

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Mon, 10 Feb 2014 00:00:00 GMT

The use of post offer testing and pre-placement testing was first initiated during World War II in order to ensure that individuals were able to perform their particular jobs efficiently, effectively, and with a lower risk of injury. A study conducted by Dr. Gary Harbin and John Olson for the American Journal of Industrial Medicine , which was published April 2005, showed that if employers in the industry fields implemented post offer employment testing, the decrease in injuries, missed workdays, and medical costs could be significant.

Physical Capacity Test

The researchers conducted a study between 1989 and 1994 with a large food production plant in Salina , Kansas which housed 2,482 employees. Each employee was required to be in employment with the company for at least three consecutive years in order to be considered for the study.

The objective behind this research was to engineer a way to control injuries by ergonomically adjusting specific jobs to fit the physical capabilities of employees.

During the study it was noted that traditional radiographic evaluations, physician administered exams, lumbar range of motion, and psychological testing were ineffective in attempting to control work-related injuries. Also, simple strength testing was proven ineffective without providing the direct correlation of the demands of the specific job. The researchers did discover, however, that when employees were placed in jobs they could physically perform, the action proved to be effectively ergonomic effective and decrease injury rates.

These employees were required to undergo 20 different anthropometric, fitness, strength, and lifting tests, and were then classified according to the U.S. Department of Labor’s Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT), which categorizes the physical strain and difficulty required in specific jobs.

The employees were split into two groups: those who matched the strength capacity equal to the job’s demands, and those whose strength capacity was less. Although the matched group had the capability to perform the specific job and the mismatched group did not, the study proved that there were no statistical differences in the rate of injury based on the strength or physical capacity of employees.

The study of these two groups showed a significant increase in work-related sprains and strains within the mismatched group, including an injury rate to the lumbar spine and shoulder that was approximately 10 times higher than that of the matched group. The study also showed that 70 percent of the work-related injuries were to the hands and wrists. There was a noted $7 dollar savings for $1 dollar spent on testing

Harbin and Olson conducted another study at an electrical manufacturing facility between 1993 and 1998. This facility provided jobs that required more physical capacity than the first, but placed all new hires with a position that matched their post-offer test results.

In 1992, which was the final non-post-offer testing year of the electrical facility, the medical costs from work-related sprains and strains reached higher than $70,000. Four years later in 1996, the cost dropped below $10,000( 86% decrease). Although the injury rate did not decline after implementing the post-offer tests, the severity of the injuries greatly decreased.

After completion of this study, the facility’s employers realized a 30 percent ($76,000) drop in workmen’s compensation annual premiums and a drastic decrease in missed workdays (more than 700 in 1993, but only seven in 1996). This all took place while the company grew from 170 to 200 employees. This comes to a minimum annual savings of $380.00 per employee.

The studies conducted by Harbin and Olson proves that post offer testing ensures that employees will be capable of performing their specific jobs with a significant decrease in the risk of injury. The difference in the rates of injuries between the matched and mismatched groups is convincing enough that employers should consider implementing these tests before hiring or assigning jobs and tasks.

The results from both of these studies indicate that approximately 66 percent of males and 50 percent of females can perform DOT Level 3 jobs, while only 33 percent of males and 10 percent of females are capable of performing DOT Level 4 jobs.

Using these categorized DOT levels and the results from these studies should enable employers to greatly diminish work-related injuries, which will financially help their companies and employees, and keep their working environments safer.

Shoulder Injury Reduction With Post-Offer Testing

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Wed, 29 Jan 2014 00:00:00 GMT

Source
Harbin GL, Shenoy C, Garcia A, Olson JC.
Salina Sports Medicine Clinic, Salina, KS 67401, USA. gary2900@ssmoc.kscoxmail.com
Post Offer Employment Testing

OBJECTIVE:

This study is an interventional evaluation of a post-offer employment testing. The study is designed to determine if shoulder injury rates are lowered when employees are placed at jobs they demonstrate the physical ability to perform.

METHODS:

A physical capacity evaluation based testing protocol was utilized to determine if each new employee had the physical work capacity to perform the job for which they were hired. Injuries to the shoulder were specifically scrutinized. The interventional group was compared to a historical control.

RESULTS:

The incidence of shoulder injuries was 0% in the tested group and 3.8% in the untested historical control. Over a 6 year study timeframe the utilization of physical capacity testing for work placement appeared to be the major factor in decreasing work related shoulder injuries. The annual cost of administering the tests for three years was $9,543, while the net annual cost savings was $124,451. This represented a 37% decrease in medical costs for shoulder and other work-related injuries. For every dollar spent on testing there was a $14 savings in medical costs secondary to injury prevention.

CONCLUSION:

The use of post-offer physical capacity testing resulted in a substantial and noticeable decrease in shoulder related non-accidental injuries. Furthermore, it is evident that a properly conceived and implemented post-offer testing program may help in the reduction of work-related injuries.

Post Offer Physical, Testing and Screening

mark@mf.marketing (Mark Friesen) — Fri, 24 Jan 2014 00:00:00 GMT

Source
Harbin G, Olson J.
Salina Sports Medicine Clinic, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas 67401, USA. glharbin@ssmoc.kscoxmail.com

BACKGROUND:

Pre-placement testing was implemented during World War II. Its current use has been reshaped by economic factors, litigation, legislation, and advances in medicine. In response to a request from a local industry intent upon lowering their work-related injuries, a post-offer screening program was developed and implemented. The aim of this study was to develop a testing protocol for determining physical capacity that could be adapted for a post-offer, pre-placement program.

METHODS:

Functional capacity evaluation (FCE) testing was used to determine the physical capacity of 2,482 uninjured, healthy prospective new employees of a large food production plant. A comprehensive medical history and 20 different anthropometric, fitness, strength, and lifting tests were administered to all new hires in the first phase of this study to determine if injury incidence could be estimated through functional screening testing. The second study was designed to determine the effectiveness of the application of a post-offer, pre-placement program in an electrical equipment manufacturing facility.

RESULTS:

Strength testing alone was of no predictive value for work injury incidence. There was a strong correlation of physical capacity to physical job requirements. If an employee had the physical capability to perform the essential functions of the job, there was a lower injury rate as compared to the employee not demonstrating the physical strength or ability to perform the essential functions of the job. The incidence of low back injuries in those workers with the physical capabilities to perform the required functions of their job was 3%. However, among those workers who did not demonstrate the strength or physical abilities to perform their job, there was a 33% incidence of low back injuries.

CONCLUSIONS:

This study indicates that out post offer physical testing that compares lifting ability to job lifting requirements correlates to work injury incidence. The application of appropriate post-offer, pre-placement testing is shown to be a cost-effective method to lower the incidence of work-related injuries.