Insurers won't back the research to prove the benefits of physiotherapy treatment, but they still spend a great deal of money on it, says Chris Keast
A few weeks ago Insurance Times asked the industry if it would support research to establish whether the millions of pounds spent each year on physiotherapy treatment for personal injury cases was worth it.
As expected, the response from physiotherapists and other service providers has been a vigorous defence of the treatment. The response from insurers has been deafening silence. Why this might be the case, one can only surmise. Insurers are certainly paying for it.
Insurers spend tens of millions each year on a treatment for accident victims, but there is little monitoring of what this money is actually spent on.
They could save a lot of money if they instigated research to prove what doctors already know, that the earlier treatment is started the more effective it is. They could even cease payouts for physiotherapy a year or so after an accident, as by that time the injury would have become chronic and difficult to treat and continued treatment could be proved to be ineffective.
Sport is the source of many injuries requiring physiotherapy treatment. Football, in particular, has a large share of these injuries which have a considerable effect on the finances of a club.
So when a footballer is injured the first person on the pitch is the physiotherapist. Following intensive treatment given to the damaged muscle or ligament every other day for a week or two, the player is, often, fit to take to the pitch again.
It would be pretty hopeless offering a player money to pay for treatment a year later.
Many general practice doctors have a good insight into the medical claims industry. They are bemused when patients are given large sums of money to pay for therapy as a result of a claim and then duly spend it on holidays or paying off credit card bills.
It is difficult to blame people for using the money for this purpose. Holidays can provide the emotional and psychological boost someone recovering from an accident might need. However, compensation money to pay for physiotherapy should be used for that purpose.
It doesn't seem as if insurers track what they are spending when it comes to personal injury claims. It is shocking to discover patients with minor neck injuries, who have never seen a specialist for treatment, having to be examined by consultant orthopaedic surgeons, at vast expense, when a simple GP's report would be more than adequate.
The amount of delayed physiotherapy requests and the costs involved appear to be enormous. Insurers would do well to prove that patients benefit from having treatment as soon as possible after the accident. This would reduce the total number of sessions and also ensure that the money will be spent on therapy.
Whatever the case, paying compensation to insureds once the case is settled, perhaps a year or more afterwards, is not an effective way of treating their customers or protecting bottom line.
Practically, by making physiotherapy available sooner, there would be less repeat visits to the GP, the patient would be back at work earlier, the feel-good factor would be "operational" and the cost to insurers would be less.
In Canada, insurers have already shown that by treating claimants sympathetically and offering them all the treatment they need immediately after accidents, recovery times and compensation claims drop dramatically.
Customers' motor insurance premiums reflect the pay outs for physiotherapy and damages and most drivers, who are rarely involved in accidents, would agree that medical costs in minor accidents are excessive.
More insurers must be proactive with respect to treating accident victims with physiotherapy and any research in this area will be of real value.
