The value of preplacement medical examinations for nonhazardous light duty work

Abstract

A prospective study on 6,125 job applicants for light duty telephone company work is presented, which indicates that a preplacement medical evaluation is not predictive of risks relating to work attendance or job performance in nonhazardous assignments. Results show that between groups of employees, who were medically classified at the time of hire into categories with or without employment risk factors, there was no significant difference relative to sickness, accident or other absence, or to work performance during the first twelve months after hire. A work force loss of 25% is seen during the first year after hire without significant difference between groups for either numbers of employees lost or reason for loss. A cost-benefit analysis based on this study is presented, which demonstrates that the preplacement medical evaluation for light duty assignments is not cost effective. In addition, further unnecessary costs are incurred when job applicants are medically evaluated but not hired, which is shown to occur here for 27.5% of healthy applicants.