The Government has been undertaking a review into sickness and absence from work.

It is expected that when the report is released later on this week that it will include a recommendation to replace the “sick note” obtained from the General Practitioner” with a dedicated body able to decide on an employee's fitness to work.

As ever, the aim of the report is to cut the costs of sickness to employers and the economy. One of the commissioners of the report, Dame Carol Black explained that GP's regularly felt that they did not have adequate levels of occupational health information and that the amount of time they typically spent with employees to assess their fitness was really too short to give an in depth assessment.

It is believed that the costs that would be involved in setting up the new system would far outstrip the savings to be had from the prevention of people taking long term sickness, which is currently a problem in Britain. However, there are those of the opinion that such changes would only lead to an increase in people looking for jobs in what is unfortunately a very lack lustre job market at the moment. In addition a survey by the TUC last year actually revealed that there are many workers who attend work even when they are too ill to do so. It seems, therefore like a difficult area to really get a handle of given the complicatedness of assessing who is working who shouldn't be and who isn't working who could be.

People who are on sickness-related benefits do of course cost the economy. Black claimed that the UK had a £13 billion sickness benefit bill as employers annually pay £9 billion in sick pay. These people may have previously been long-term sick from their jobs, costing their employer's beforehand. Whilst there is support to get people back to work who could still do so, maybe with the support of some reasonable adjustments, there is also great concern that now is simply not the time for such a focused approached. In support of the proposal Black said: "We only have to save 5,000 people moving into employment support allowance, to pay for this service."

It has been reported in the past that some GP's do have difficulty in assessing who is fit for work when it comes to looking at the adjustments that could be made to facilitate a return to work. From this perspective perhaps it is better for a more occupational health approach. Someone who is to sign an individual off work needs to fully understand what that individual's role is at work and what amendments to it, if any, could be made to allow them to safely continue to work. In the past it has been argued that GP's can be too far removed from the work environment's of their patients to make an informed decision.

There are other more psychological aspects to a GP having the power to sign an individual off work. A GP may have built up a relationship with their patient over many years. This trust is something they may wish to maintain, they would not like to see a deterioration in it if they feel their patient could lose confidence in them if they do not assess that they do in fact need some time off. Similarly, where there is an existing relationship the GP may be more inclined to have the view that the individual's job is negatively contributing to their illness. In this way, it could be that the GP is too close to make the decision in some aspects and then, too far removed in others, for their assessment to be accurate.

There is a sense that yes something needs to be done. However, many question is now really the time to be spending money on changing the system when actually, even if these people did return to work, what work is there for them? Perhaps the government needs to create some jobs before it spends more funds on creating more people for the (non-existent) job.