Going to work while sick can cost the economy report suggests

New economic analysis reveals that people struggling through their work while genuinely unwell is annually proving costly to the tune of billions of pounds. 
 
It emerged after IPPR demanded end to what it referred to as ‘ill health-as-an-asset’ economy where employers were deemed to be relying on the health of their employees. 

The report – the last significant paper given to the IPPR Commission on Health and Prosperity – claims that the untold impact on the economy of illness since the rise has been £30bn. 
 
Of this, £25bn is as a result of reduced output this is because workers attend work when they are unwell, as opposed to being at home sick, the report adds, and the rest is attributed to sick days Proper. 
 
According to the IPPR, UK is referred to as the ‘the (literal) sick man of Europe’ due to reasons such as; Poor quality employment and Emigration, Unhealthy lifestyle – Obesity, health irregularities, Smoking Health irregularities, Gambling and Low investment on health. 
 
As a result, it cautioned that growing sickness will take a toll on human health, whereby individuals will live extensively festering sicknesses; it also highlighted, that sick individuals pose a ‘grave fiscal threat’. 
 
According to the report, referring to the calculations of the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), the identified factor of economic inactivity because of sickness can result in £8. minus 9 billion via a cut in annual tax receipts accompanied with a rise in welfare and health costs. 
 
Dr Jamie O’Halloran, senior research fellow at IPPR, said: ‘Far too frequently, UK employees are feeling compelled to go to work while ill, even where that is not healthy for them or good for efficiency. ’ 
 
It can be due to, for example, hostile working conditions, inadequate leadership, or low cash reserves or simple lack of knowledge of chronic diseases among employers in the UK. 
 
“Awareness and change should be catalysed by our demonstration of a ‘hidden’ productivity cost of working through sickness. 
 
“It is possible to honour the achieved great outcomes by continuously endeavouring to guarantee their healthiness, to provide breaks where needed, and to make sure businesses invest in and benefit from population health; this way, productivity, as well as profits and growth, would increase, and workers would be protected. 
 
For this reason, the report outlines the need for the formulation of a ‘health-led-economy,’ fashioned on three ‘pillars’. 
 
This includes employers being required to provide good workplace health, and shifting the economic patterns from junk food and alcohol towards health enhancing goods and services. 
 
It also advises investing in what it terms as the “health industries of the future”. 
 
‘Someone must start questioning how such investments, supporting our daily lives and even our pensions, contribute to health and foster the health industries of tomorrow,’ the report underscored. 
 
Kieron Boyle, chief executive of the Impact Investing Institute and IPPR commissioner, said: “People no longer view health as expense but as investment hence this is a clear blueprint on what businesses and investors stand to be doing for a healthy economic future. 
 
Paul Devoy, chief executive of Investors in People, added: ‘The best findings reveal that there is a positive correlation between employer’s attention to the promotion of wellbeing in their organization, productivity, and sustainable organisational performance. 
 
“Attention to the fully planned and coordinated process of engaging, developing and enhancing an organisational culture of wellbeing provides lasting organisational advantage to all employers who so empower their people. ” 
 
A spokesperson for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “No-one should be faced with a grim situation of either keeping ill or facing penury and that’s why we want to enhance the statutory sick pay so that it can help those in the society who are most affected.