Sickness absence in healthcare: from cost item to strategic capacity risk

This is not an incident. It is a structural pattern that directly affects deployable capacity, costs, continuity and job satisfaction. And it calls for an executive choice: accept absence as a cost item or use it as a lever for structural improvement.

In this article, you will read the key insights from our whitepaper: why absence is a strategic risk, which five trends drive it, and what you as an executive can do.

Why absence is a strategic risk

An absence rate of 5 to 8 per cent represents a permanent loss of deployable labour capacity. For an average healthcare organisation with 2,000 FTEs and anabsence rate above the national average, this means 158 FTEs that are structurally unavailable. In practice, this means that more than one in thirteen healthcare employees is unavailable.

This loss of capacity is absorbed through higher workloads, external hiring and scaling back care. This drives further absence and creates a downward spiral. At the same time, our benchmark of 316 healthcare organisations shows a clear correlation: organisations with higher absence more often have lower or negative financial results.

The financial impact is significant. For an organisation with 2,000 FTEs, an absence rate of 5.6 per cent equates to approximately 112 FTEs of unavailable capacity. The associated labour costs amount to approximately €7.3 million per year. The financial consequences of replacement, external hiring and loss of productivity come on top of this. Our benchmark shows that higher absence is associated with lower financial results and EBITDA.

Five trends that drive absence

Our whitepaper describes five trends that are key structural drivers of absence. They show what this means for healthcare executives and where you can steer.

1. Influenceable absence 
   Not all absence is the same. Work-related absence – due to workload, physical strain or leadership – can be directly influenced. This applies to more than one in five employees who are absent. The financial impact of this influenceable portion amounts to €1.5 million per year, before replacement costs and loss of productivity. The actual financial lever is therefore considerably higher.
2. Mental health absence has a major impact
   Psychological complaints, stress and burnout account for 8.2 per cent of total absence. In long-term absence, mental health problems are the cause in around 40 per cent of cases. A period of mental health absence lasts an average of 67 days: more than four times longer than average. The cost per employee: €30,150.
3. Digitalisation can also increase workload
   Digitalisation and AI offer opportunities to automate routine tasks. But without redesigning work processes, the technology comes on top of existing tasks. The result: more record-keeping, more coordination and higher workload. Moreover, AI tools are used more often by men and younger employees. In a sector with relatively many female and older professionals, this calls for targeted support, so that digitalisation does not lead to additional workload for these groups.
4. Women's absence
   Nearly eight in ten healthcare employees are women. Research by VZinfo shows that women are absent more often (5.8 per cent versus 3.8 per cent) and for longer. In the 31 to 40 age group, where work and care responsibilities peak, they are two and a half times more likely to have long-term absence. The additional costs of women's absence in healthcare: €4.9 million per year. Our conclusion is that absence policy must be redesigned for this group.
5. Ageing workforce
   The healthcare sector is ageing faster than the rest of the labour market. In many organisations, 35 per cent of employees are already over 50, compared with 31 per cent on average. Older employees have a higher risk of chronic conditions and long-term absence. For an organisation with 2,000 FTEs, this means 700 FTEs of vulnerable capacity.

What this means for your organisation

The five trends make one thing clear: absence is not the sum of incidents, but a structural pattern. The key lies in making underlying causes visible: where does absence arise, what portion can be influenced, and which factors in work and organisation contribute to it?

This calls for explicit strategic choices. Integrate absence into your strategic governance and risk management. Make the steerable portion explicit. Focus on groups at higher risk of absence: female professionals at peak age, employees with high mental strain and older employees. And link digitalisation to workload: assess every investment on time savings, ease of use and impact on employability.

With our data-driven approach, Grip op verzuim, we combine absence data and employee experience into new, explainable insights, so that interventions can be deployed more precisely. This creates room to increase employability, reduce costs and organise healthcare in a future-proof way.

For the board of directors, three questions are central:

1. What portion of absence can be influenced?
2. Which costs are related to choices in workload, scheduling and leadership?
3. And to what extent is this influenceable portion anchored in the strategic agenda and multi-year budget? 

Want to know more?

Download the full whitepaper and discover how your organisation can gain a grip on absence with a data-driven approach. Feel free to get in touch to discuss the possibilities.