Embracing the Employer Perspective
Movie buffs surely recall the 2000 hit “What Women Want,” featuring Mel Gibson as an ad executive with the unique power to “hear” what women were thinking whenever one or more was in his presence. Wouldn’t it be nice if we too had the power to “hear” what our employer clients and prospective clients are thinking? While hardly Gibson-esque, RYAN Associates maintains a treasure trove of survey data from employers throughout the country that should provide programs with a sense of what is going on in the typical employer’s mind vis-à vis employee health. Since it was founded in 1985, RYAN Associates has been conducting employer market research in hundreds of markets.
Many questions in each survey are tailored for individual clients or have been asked in only a few surveys. However, many other questions have been asked in every employer survey and the cumulative data offer compelling insight into employer thinking and preferences.
Based on a statistically significant cohort of 2,096 employers who completed surveys recently in dozens of markets, a mix of urban, suburban, and rural markets in every region of the country–the following data and their implications are worth considering.
QUESTION #1:
“Respondents were asked to rate the perceived value of various health services that might be offered to area employers on a scale of five to one. Below are the numbers of respondents (given in percentages) who rated each service as“exceptionally valuable.”
DISCUSSION:
The strong interest in rehab services suggests that employers generally recognize the value of “state of the art” rehab in managing the most chronic (and expensive)conditions of their employees. Many occupational health programs are either not adequately connected with their own organization’s rehab services or fail to tout their rehab capabilities to clients and prospects.
Historically, wellness services are of keen interest to employers. The dilemma lies in translating this interest into sustainable programs that make a difference and pricing these services appropriately. On the lower end of the list, a sports medicine program per se does not appear to be of interest to the respondents. Given the proliferation of fitness facility options in most communities today, the availability of a healthcare organization-affiliated fitness center may seem so yesterday in the minds of many employers.
QUESTION #2:
Our employer participants were asked if their occupational health programs were extremely effective (5) or not at all effective (1) at communication in the following areas:
DISCUSSION:
The “C” word—communication—is central to virtually any discussion of occupational health services. RYANAssociates’ surveys explored six different types of occupational health program communication. It is notable that none of the six areas received a large vote of confidence in terms of mean score. Curiously, perceptions of how well healthcare
organizations communicated within their own organizations suggest widespread skepticism that things are going well behind the scenes.
QUESTION #3:
Employer respondents were then asked to rate the perceived effectiveness of various marketing outreach methods on a scale of five to one (extremely effective to not at all effective):
DISCUSSION:
How times have changed! High-touch/hands-on marketing is the new in and old-fashioned face-to-face sales calls are the new out. At the heart of most programs marketing should be a stream of open houses and tours of clinics by employer prospects. Surprisingly, old staple written materials sent through the mail seem to be making a comeback as email and other technology-driven marketing are starting to overwhelm. However, care must be taken to ensure that such distributions are accompanied by a personally signed letter and are considered an adjunct rather than a core outreach tactic.
QUESTION #4:
Employer respondents were asked how satisfied they were with our client’s occupational health program. The following table indicates the percentage of respondents who were “extremely satisfied” with each potential program attribute:
DISCUSSION:
Notably, process-oriented variables such as accessibility (i.e., location), appointment availability, and communication trump the core outcome variable: “facilitating an early return to work.” It appears that many employers more easily grasp onto what they see before their eyes than something (i.e., outcomes) that is best measured over time. Of the lower-rated variables, employer concerns with pricing, wait times, and emergency department services are not surprising but do reinforce the need to proactively address these chronic problem areas. Facilitating an early return to work is rated as the most important factor in selecting a provider (see question five below) yet less than a third of responding companies report that they are “extremely satisfied” with performance in this area. This suggests that programs can document positive outcomes for clients, and they can gain an edge in the marketplace.
QUESTION #5:
Employer respondents were asked to rate the importance of each of the following on a five-to-one scale with five being “extremely important” in selecting an external provider of occupational health services.
DISCUSSION:
There is a large spread between the perceived importance of service attributes. Return to work performance leads the pack but is followed by a host of variables that reflect convenience and process: patient turnaround, location and same-day lab test results all receive high ratings. Pricing is rated as important but is at a midpoint on this array.
That the “availability of work site based services” received only a 27 percent rating is misleading. Although fewer respondents were interested in this service, 27 percent of employers think it is important to suggest an excellent opportunity exists for pinpointing clients who are amenable to such high-value relationships.
