Medicalization: it’s an insidious problem facing companies and employees across the world. A non-medical issue can find itself elevated to the status of medical condition, leaving behind a wake of ballooning costs, HR catastrophe, and ultimately, a patient outright let down by the medical establishment.
Medicalization is the elevation of a non-medical issue to a pseudo-medical problem. We’ve previously addressed the problem and what employers can do about it, but you might be wondering: what’s the cost?
You’ve got an employee complaining of a medical issue you’re just not sure about. Where to start? Well, when it comes to diagnosing a “real” medical problem, it’s helpful to think in terms of a spectrum.
When an accident happens at work, of course the most important thing is the health of the injured worker and preventing a reoccurrence. We’ve covered where the costs of a workplace accident come from and how direct and indirect costs can really a hit a company’s bottom line.
There’s a lot that can go wrong with the human body — and a workplace is often a prime place for them to happen. Trying to work out the cost of a workplace injury is highly dependent on what happened, where, and what the recovery looks like.
Does everything really have to be a medical condition? Does everything need a pill or a treatment plan? Are people really best served by the medical industry turning them into dependent patients?
Medicine itself can get cancer: it’s called medicalization. It proliferates into unneeded treatment, creates worry, and interferes with work — but what is it?
Western Medical Assessments is excited to announce that we’re now an official associate supplier of the Alberta Motor Transport Association. The AMTA is the Alberta trucking industry’s unified voice committed to advocating on behalf of truckers to the provincial and federal governments.
You’ve got a tough disability claim on your desk. The claimant has had an accident that prevents them for working due to a disability, but some of the information just isn’t adding up. It could be that they just haven’t recorded it properly and you need to reach out to get it. But maybe the doctor’s report itself isn’t quite aligning with what you think is going on.
The contentious thing at the heart of a personal injury case is often the injury itself. How severe is it? Has it been mischaracterised by either side? Could bias be colouring the presentation of the issue?