Comments on: Employee Wellness Programs & Health Insurance

By: KimCoMtMan

KimCoMtMan — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:20:38 +0000

Wellness programs are now widespread in both the public and private sector, created to achieve cost-savings and improve employee health. The programs should be designed for broad participation. As Feifei Wang, PhD, expresses, “Most of the wellness programs reach only a small portion of the target population.”
Wellness program advisors express a consensus on strategies to build effective plans. Most importantly, they believe that a target population should be the source of ideas concerning the development of program activities and incentives. Every participant should be awarded incentives in an individualized, non-competitive manner. Appropriate rewards may be time off; reduced health insurance co-payments; recreational equipment or facilities; and discounts for recreational health activities.
A wellness program that rewards individuals only on narrow criteria as body mass, blood pressure, and cholesterol is flawed. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services, any wellness program should avoid rewards for biometric data and competitive incentives.
A program that only rewards participants with a “normal” BMI below 24.9 excludes participants. Currently, about 55% of Americans exceed BMI 25. If they perceive that attaining BMI 24.9 is unrealistic, individuals from whom costly medical risks arise will reject the program.
Historically, the range of “normal” BMI extended to 25.8 for women and 26.4 for men. Steven Halls, MD, estimates that “normal” BMI for men should extend to 27. Furthermore, increased medical and drug costs begin at BMI 27, according to a large-scale study by Feifei Wang, PhD, et. al. The steepest increases in costs are below BMI 19 and above BMI 30.
Medical cost increases are approximately 4% per BMI from 27 to 45. Drug cost increases are estimated at 7% per BMI unit. Therefore, any improvement saves money and should be rewarded.

Blood pressure levels provide another example. Lowering the average blood pressure of participants may be a noble goal. However, requiring a participant to achieve a blood pressure reading less than or equal to 120/80, perceived as a “normal” standard, is not helpful. Prehypertension, blood pressure between 120/80 and 140/90, may affect one-third of the population. However, medical studies indicate that prehypertension is misdiagnosed in up to 43% of patients due to errors such as variations in readings and the elevated pressure created by “white coat” syndrome, measuring in a clinical setting.
According to Laura P. Svetkey, MD, changes in diet and exercise can lower blood pressure 7 points; weight loss of ten pounds can lower systolic pressure another 4 points. Therefore, an attainment criteria of 120/80 forces health care providers to become drug pushers, increasing health care costs and endangering the health of patients with pressure readings only slightly above “normal.”
Therefore, any successful wellness program will reject specific biometric criteria. The attainment of improved health among the members of a group is dependent on the infusion of ideas and participation from the bottom to top of an organization, not unfunded mandates from aloof comptrollers on high.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 01 Jan 2010 23:35:55 +0000

Brilliant! Behavior can only be changed by others, governments, and institutions when it is enforced only by the taking away of the corporate cheese or by the business end of a gun. Fatty HR’s company should realize that WE THE PEOPLE change our own behavior when we are tired of being fat, stupid, ugly, or too nice.
Our company has Free Donut friday. Try taking that benefit away and make the fatties count their steps! Right!

By: billy bob

billy bob — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:38:52 +0000

Okay, so I dont know much about this topic,. But I do know that one way to make employers, and employees happy, and help them both cut costs and save money, is for employers to self fund, go with a high deductible health plan, and pair the plan with an aggregate wrap as well as a HSA/ HRA.I also read about a medical travel plan.
Below Is a link to a video I found on you tube. I hope this info helps…

Youtube link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzTmC-m2bII

By: HR Carnival of Global Giving is now open!

HR Carnival of Global Giving is now open! — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:10:00 +0000

[...] Ruettimann, the anarchist riot grrl of the HR world shares her perspective on Employee Wellness Programs and Health Insurance with us. She would also like to share our donation with her favorite charity, Kalamazoo Animal [...]

By: poof! no more employer-provided benefits. would employee wellness programs still exist? — free-range communication

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:49:15 +0000

[...] a good friend said they would, while i argued they’d stick with it for the other workforce benefits: increased productivity, lowered presenteeism and absenteeism, and “great employer” points, to highlight a few key ones. companies around the world seem to agree, as do lots of others—in hr and not. [...]

By: Laurie

Laurie — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:52:06 +0000

@Econopete

@JL Thanks for the comment. Companies don’t need to keep costs down — they need to make money focusing on their core business principles. I dunno. The more I think about it, the more I’m just offended by private health insurance. But to your point — I’d like to keep my $200 in the first place. Lower my health insurance premiums.

By: JL

JL — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 04:52:49 +0000

The company I work for has an employee wellness program that’s been in effect for about 2 years now. There are 3 requirements: enroll in a “Quit For Life” smoking cessation program, get a physical once every 2 years, and fill out an online health assessment that tells you what health risks you should be aware of. If you don’t do those 3 requirements, your only option for medical insurance is a higher-deductible plan. It may sound cruel to some of you who don’t support this type of thing and don’t agree with employers being involved with employee health in that capacity, but I really don’t think that’s asking a whole lot of people. Companies need to keep costs down. I think it’s a good way to encourage healthier behaviors. In addition, employees who participate can get up to $300 back the following year by doing healthy things, such as going to the dentist or participating in a stress-management course [these things are given point allotments & are tracked on a website]. It’s all really simple, and hell, I’m getting $200 next year for doing little things that are beneficial to my health! I think it’s a good tool for motivating employees to make better choices for themselves. Again, I can see the other side, but I’ve seen the program my company has as something fairly progressive without being too overwhelming.

JL : ]

By: econopete

econopete — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:31:20 +0000

Thank you sooooooo much Laurie! This will allow me to beat down my enemies’ defenses as to why we shouldn’t have health care reform. (My enemies being my two/three Republican relatives who are horribly outnumbered by the rest of us dirty, elitist liberals. And a few people on Facebook that I argue with just to keep my mind fresh.) It just gets so frustrating when people cry, “zomg! socialism!” Being only about ninety minutes from Niagara Falls, if it was easy to become a Canadian citizen, I would’ve bolted for the border a long time ago!

By: Laurie

Laurie — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:18:00 +0000

@econopete I think the licensing community is separate from the insurance community. From what I remember from my brief time at Kemper, the # of claims impacts whether or not you’re insurable — but licensing is a completely different route. The two are often disconnected. Insurance companies often penalize the field (i.e., obstetrics) instead of aggressively weeding out those doctors with the highest claims. It’s a fucked up and inefficient process.

Also, here are some articles.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/67607-tensions-brim-between-gop-and-ceos-over-healthcare-reform
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-t-camden/why-health-care-now_b_209382.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-stern-and-jeff-kindler/why-healthcare-cant-wait_b_169202.html

By: econopete

econopete — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 06:03:11 +0000

Laurie, sorry for the late reply! You have exposed my ignorance on this issue (malpractice insurance). I have two clarifying questions for you, though: do doctors that make serious mistakes repeatedly pay the same rates as doctors that don’t? And why do they keep their license? I honestly don’t know, but if that’s how the system really works…well, I’ll just say that I concur.

One more thing: you said companies are lobbying for healthcare reform. Is there an article somewhere that summarizes what’s going on with that? I think I saw even WalMart is lobbying for reform. Is it a “hush-hush” thing for fear of retaliation from insurance agencies? Or is it just not getting all the media attention that everything else is?