Everyone sells prevention. We hand you the number it moved.
The argument for this work is scattered across 4 pages of this site. This is all of it in one place, with a calculator that runs on your figures rather than ours.
The cost is already on your books
Absence, presenteeism, premium movement and replacement hiring are live line items right now. The question was never whether to spend on musculoskeletal health; it is whether the spend is deliberate.
Nobody is measuring it
Fewer than half of Canadian organisations track absence at all, and fewer still cost it. A number that is not tracked cannot be improved, and cannot be defended in a budget meeting.
Waiting is the expensive part
Delay between injury and treatment is one of the strongest predictors of a claim that does not close. The intervention that matters most is the one that happens first.
RRRadj = 1.4, 95% CI 1.03, 1.8
Raised risk of not returning to work when treatment is delayed
Prevention spend has a published return
Canadian benefit-cost ratios for prevention are documented sector by sector. They are not uniform and they are not enormous, but they are positive and they are checkable.
CA$1.62
Median return per dollar invested in workplace mental health programmes
Your claims, your budget, published ratios.
Nothing here is stored or sent anywhere. Every figure the calculator supplies carries a link to the Canadian body that published it, and every figure you supply stays yours.
What the exposure looks like
Your figures, published ratios, nothing stored.
Your numbers
From your WSIB or WCB statement.
Published Canadian average. Overwrite it.A422
What you would spend.
Measure the return against
Programme evidence
Ontario sectors
Median return per dollar invested in workplace mental health programmesA401
Annual exposure $702,000 to $1,170,000. Prevention budget $25,000, 3.6 per cent of the low end. Returned $40,500.
Direct cost only
$234,000
Per employee, per year
$2,808 – $4,680
Budget against exposure
3.6%
The arithmetic
- 6 × $39,000
- $234,000
- $234,000 + indirect ×2 to ×4
- $702,000 – $1,170,000
- $25,000 × CA$1.62
- $40,500
Your baseline comes from the assessment.
Book the assessmentOur position, stated plainly. Arithmetic on your numbers and published ratios, not a projection of your result. No injury-reduction rate is assumed, because no Canadian publisher reports one that transfers between employers. A forecast needs your own baseline first.
Against a clinic referral, and against doing nothing.
Doing nothing is the option most employers actually pick, so it belongs in the table rather than off it.
| Attribute | wereset | Clinic referral | Doing nothing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Happens before an injury | Yes | No | No |
| Employee has to travel and take time offhere, yes is not better | No | Yes | No |
| Produces an objective baseline number | Yes | PartlyA clinical assessment is recorded, but not benchmarked or repeated on a set interval. | No |
| Retests to show whether it worked | Yes | No | No |
| Gives the employer aggregate reporting | Yes | No | No |
| Documented prevention activity for a rebate filing | Yes | No | No |
| Cost is visible on the P&Lhere, yes is not better | Yes | Yes | NoDoing nothing still costs - it just arrives as premium, absence and replacement hiring rather than as an invoice. |
None of this is our data. That is the point.
Every outcome cited on this site was published by a third party and is linked to its source. No result anywhere on wereset.ca is claimed as a wereset result.
30% reduction
Sustained reduction in soft tissue injuries at an Ontario utility
33% greater
Increase in the probability of being off wage replacement benefits
Get the baseline. Then argue about the budget.
One site, one shift, one set of numbers. Enough to build a business case, and enough to file against a prevention rebate.
