Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Return to Work (RTW) Program for Workers with Disabilities in Indonesia: Health, Economic and Productivity Outcomes.

IF 2.7 3区医学 Q1 REHABILITATION

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Pub Date : 2026-06-24 DOI:10.1007/s10926-026-10396-6

Arie Arizandi Kurnianto, Faten Amer, Ananda Dellina Putri, Ade Paranata, Zsolt Nemeskéri, István Ágoston

{"title":"Cost-Consequence Analysis of the Return to Work (RTW) Program for Workers with Disabilities in Indonesia: Health, Economic and Productivity Outcomes.","authors":"Arie Arizandi Kurnianto, Faten Amer, Ananda Dellina Putri, Ade Paranata, Zsolt Nemeskéri, István Ágoston","doi":"10.1007/s10926-026-10396-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This study assesses the cost consequence of the Return To Work (RTW) program for disabled workers who suffered from occupational injury in Indonesia in last decade. The question was whether or not RTW programs result in improved health, economic, and productivity results compared with traditional treatments.Methods: Retrospective design was conducted to analyze the occupational injury claim records by evaluating the cost consequences of the RTW program in Indonesia. We compared 1353 RTW claims with 10,602 occupational injury claims. Cost-consequence analysis reported disaggregated outcomes (Lost Time Injury Days (LTIDs), RTW rates, medical costs, productivity losses) following CHEERS 2022 guidelines. Costs were adjusted to USD using the Indonesian Consumer Price Index and average exchange rate data in 2022.Results: Occupational injury with RTW claims had higher average direct medical treatment costs (USD 822.50 vs USD 262.25) and greater productivity losses than non RTW claims (USD 46239.60 vs USD 28261.20) due to the complex nature of the cases included in the program. RTW cases had longer LTIDs (350.3 vs 214.1 days) and higher productivity‑related costs, reflecting a more complex casemix, but also markedly higher RTW success rates than usual care where 84.0% RTW vs 20.3% non RTW cases.Conclusion: The RTW program has resulted in different patterns of costs and outcomes than traditional treatments. These differences should be considered by decision-makers when determining how to allocate resources effectively.","PeriodicalId":48035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-026-10396-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study assesses the cost consequence of the Return To Work (RTW) program for disabled workers who suffered from occupational injury in Indonesia in last decade. The question was whether or not RTW programs result in improved health, economic, and productivity results compared with traditional treatments.

Methods: Retrospective design was conducted to analyze the occupational injury claim records by evaluating the cost consequences of the RTW program in Indonesia. We compared 1353 RTW claims with 10,602 occupational injury claims. Cost-consequence analysis reported disaggregated outcomes (Lost Time Injury Days (LTIDs), RTW rates, medical costs, productivity losses) following CHEERS 2022 guidelines. Costs were adjusted to USD using the Indonesian Consumer Price Index and average exchange rate data in 2022.

Results: Occupational injury with RTW claims had higher average direct medical treatment costs (USD 822.50 vs USD 262.25) and greater productivity losses than non RTW claims (USD 46239.60 vs USD 28261.20) due to the complex nature of the cases included in the program. RTW cases had longer LTIDs (350.3 vs 214.1 days) and higher productivity‑related costs, reflecting a more complex casemix, but also markedly higher RTW success rates than usual care where 84.0% RTW vs 20.3% non RTW cases.

Conclusion: The RTW program has resulted in different patterns of costs and outcomes than traditional treatments. These differences should be considered by decision-makers when determining how to allocate resources effectively.

查看原文本刊更多论文

印度尼西亚残疾工人重返工作岗位方案的成本-后果分析：健康、经济和生产力成果。

目的：本研究评估了印度尼西亚在过去十年中为遭受职业伤害的残疾工人提供的重返工作（RTW）计划的成本后果。问题是，与传统治疗方法相比，RTW项目是否能改善健康、经济和生产力。方法：采用回顾性设计，通过评估印度尼西亚RTW计划的成本后果，对职业伤害索赔记录进行分析。我们比较了1353起工伤索赔和10602起工伤索赔。成本-后果分析报告了按照干杯2022指南分类的结果（误工伤害日（LTIDs）、RTW费率、医疗费用、生产力损失）。成本根据印尼消费者价格指数和2022年的平均汇率数据调整为美元。结果：与非工伤索赔相比，工伤工伤索赔的平均直接医疗费用更高（822.50美元对262.25美元），生产力损失也更高（46239.60美元对28261.20美元），这是由于该计划所包含的案件的复杂性。RTW病例的ltd更长（350.3天对214.1天），与生产率相关的成本更高，反映了更复杂的病例组合，但RTW成功率也明显高于常规治疗（84.0% RTW对20.3%非RTW）。结论：与传统治疗相比，RTW项目产生了不同的成本和结果模式。决策者在决定如何有效分配资源时应考虑到这些差异。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation Multiple-

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

12.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation is an international forum for the publication of peer-reviewed original papers on the rehabilitation, reintegration, and prevention of disability in workers. The journal offers investigations involving original data collection and research synthesis (i.e., scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses). Papers derive from a broad array of fields including rehabilitation medicine, physical and occupational therapy, health psychology and psychiatry, orthopedics, oncology, occupational and insurance medicine, neurology, social work, ergonomics, biomedical engineering, health economics, rehabilitation engineering, business administration and management, and law. A single interdisciplinary source for information on work disability rehabilitation, the Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation helps to advance the scientific understanding, management, and prevention of work disability.