**4.3 Research study results**

Of the 16,113 nurses who were included in this study, 85% were females and 15% were males. There were no refusals to take the physical capability screening.

**Table 3** shows the number of eligible nurses hired in each group. There were 2481 eligible nurses hired in 2008–2010 in the Historical Comparison Group, and 13,632 eligible nurses in the PCE Group. The total member months for the Historical Comparison Group was 15,788 months, and for the PCE™ Group the total was 34,102 as shown in **Table 3**.

**Figure 5** shows what percent of the new hires had medical claims for each group. The Historical group had significantly higher percentage of claims for those hired (57.4%) compared to those hired in the PCE group (28.4%).

As shown in **Table 4**, the difference for Average Medical Paid and the PEPM between the Historical Comparison Group and the PCE™ Group is \$882 and \$77.07, respectively. Due to unequal sample sizes and unequal variances, the Kolmogorov– Smirnov Test was used to test for significance between the Historical Comparison Group and the PCE Group.

The costs to implement the PCE™ program for 2011–2017 were \$1,192,672. To calculate the savings for medical claim costs, the average claim cost for Historical group was multiplied by the number of new hires for the PCE group (13,632) times the percentage of new hire applicants that had a claim for the Historical group (57.4%) which is \$22,519,682 (**Table 5**). The actual medical claim cost for the PCE group was \$7,722,524. The combination of a smaller percentage of claims for the PCE group along with the lower average medical claim cost resulted in \$14,797,158


#### **Table 3.**

*The number of new hires, medical claims and member months for each group.*

**107**

program was \$12.41.

**Figure 6.**

*Muscle Health: The Gateway to Population Health Management*

**Average Medical Claim Cost Mean ± SD**

**Per Empl Per Month Mean ± SD**

**Total Medical Costs**

\$2878 ± 6930.73 \$239.80 ± 577.49 <.001

PCE Group \$1996 ± 4836.42 \$165.73 ± 399.53 <.001

*Comparing average medical claim and PEPM costs between historical and PCE groups (means ± SD).*

No PCE \$22,519,682 W/PCE \$7,722,524 Savings \$14,797,158

**Kolmogorov– Smirnov Test**

in savings between 2011 and 2017 (**Table 5**). The return on investment for the

*Comparing medical claim costs for nurses based on quartile measures.*

the first and fourth quartile which was significant at the .001 level (**Figure 6**).

Those individuals in the lower quartile have either weak absolute strength and/or excess body weight compared to those who are in the upper quartile who have good

The combination of increased fat weight and loss of muscular strength results in a substantial decrease in the worker's strength to body weight ratio (SBW). (A worker's strength should be proportionate to his/her body weight.) It is clear that workers with a healthy strength to body weight ratio perform better, are safer and have fewer employee health claim costs. An analysis of the Cleveland Clinic SBW data shows that those nurses with the lower SBW scores (1st Quartile) medical costs were about 42% more compared to those nurses with a higher SBW score (4th Quartile) as shown in **Figure 6**. A non-parametric test computed the statistical differences between the four quartiles. A Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test was used to test for significance between

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94058*

*Total savings resulting from the PCE program.*

Historical Group

**Table 4.**

**Table 5.**

**Figure 5.**

*Percentage of claims for each group based on number of new hires.*


#### **Table 4.**

*Occupational Wellbeing*

**4.3 Research study results**

34,102 as shown in **Table 3**.

Group and the PCE Group.

Of the 16,113 nurses who were included in this study, 85% were females and 15%

**Figure 5** shows what percent of the new hires had medical claims for each group. The Historical group had significantly higher percentage of claims for those hired

As shown in **Table 4**, the difference for Average Medical Paid and the PEPM between the Historical Comparison Group and the PCE™ Group is \$882 and \$77.07, respectively. Due to unequal sample sizes and unequal variances, the Kolmogorov– Smirnov Test was used to test for significance between the Historical Comparison

The costs to implement the PCE™ program for 2011–2017 were \$1,192,672. To calculate the savings for medical claim costs, the average claim cost for Historical group was multiplied by the number of new hires for the PCE group (13,632) times the percentage of new hire applicants that had a claim for the Historical group (57.4%) which is \$22,519,682 (**Table 5**). The actual medical claim cost for the PCE group was \$7,722,524. The combination of a smaller percentage of claims for the PCE group along with the lower average medical claim cost resulted in \$14,797,158

Number Hired 2481 13,632 Number Medical Claims 1425 3869 Number Member Months 15,788 34,102

**Historical group PCE group**

**Table 3** shows the number of eligible nurses hired in each group. There were 2481 eligible nurses hired in 2008–2010 in the Historical Comparison Group, and 13,632 eligible nurses in the PCE Group. The total member months for the Historical Comparison Group was 15,788 months, and for the PCE™ Group the total was

were males. There were no refusals to take the physical capability screening.

(57.4%) compared to those hired in the PCE group (28.4%).

*The number of new hires, medical claims and member months for each group.*

*Percentage of claims for each group based on number of new hires.*

**106**

**Figure 5.**

**Table 3.**

*Comparing average medical claim and PEPM costs between historical and PCE groups (means ± SD).*


#### **Table 5.**

*Total savings resulting from the PCE program.*

#### **Figure 6.**

*Comparing medical claim costs for nurses based on quartile measures.*

in savings between 2011 and 2017 (**Table 5**). The return on investment for the program was \$12.41.

The combination of increased fat weight and loss of muscular strength results in a substantial decrease in the worker's strength to body weight ratio (SBW). (A worker's strength should be proportionate to his/her body weight.) It is clear that workers with a healthy strength to body weight ratio perform better, are safer and have fewer employee health claim costs. An analysis of the Cleveland Clinic SBW data shows that those nurses with the lower SBW scores (1st Quartile) medical costs were about 42% more compared to those nurses with a higher SBW score (4th Quartile) as shown in **Figure 6**. A non-parametric test computed the statistical differences between the four quartiles. A Kolmogorov–Smirnov Test was used to test for significance between the first and fourth quartile which was significant at the .001 level (**Figure 6**).

Those individuals in the lower quartile have either weak absolute strength and/or excess body weight compared to those who are in the upper quartile who have good

absolute strength and a health body weight. The SBW is a good measure and predictor of health and injury risk. The SBW also shows the importance of maintain a healthy muscle mass and healthy body weight throughout life.
