I was approached by Jon Singer who wanted me to share the following:
Thanks for spreading the world about Capitalize on Wellness, a lunch and learn event on January 15, 2009 where individuals can learn how to reduce costs and increase productivity while supporting a worthy cause.
The fee for this program is a $30 donation to any of the following charities: American Heart Association, Center for Food Action , PACS/Feed The Children or REED Academy.
Capitalize on Wellness will be presented at Club H Fitness, an upscale boutique health club located at 423 W 55th Street (Between 9th and 10th Ave.). I have attached a flier/registration form or you can click below for the pdf: http://mailer.singernelson.com/m/15Jan09.pdf
Topics to be discussed include:
*The Components of Wellness
*Alarming Health Statistics
*The Effect of Lifestyle Choices
*Critical Healthcare Concerns
*Reducing Costs, Increasing Productivity
*Designing an Effective Wellness ProgramThank you for sharing this with your NYC area human resource contacts and click here to register:
http://www.singernelson.com/register.php
Jon
P.S. A healthy lunch will be served and attendees are welcome to use all of the facilities of Club H before or after the presentation.
This was a generic email message, so I sent Jon a personal note and invited him to review the very succinct reasons why I do not support ‘corporate wellness plans’ in the workforce. Furthermore, I also stressed that Human Resources has no place in managing a wellness program.
Jon responded,
To give you some background on why we are involved in this event, we created a technology called The HealthPlan Optimizer. We have helped many companies by auditing their health plans and achieve terrific results in reducing costs while often times improving benefits by making their plans far more efficient in terms of how they use their money.
We have started moving towards recommending wellness programs to help change behaviors of employees for their personal benefit as well as for the benefit of the company. I understand that the right wellness programs can lead to a reduction in sick days, improvements in personal productivity, and ultimately reduced health insurance costs with healthier employees. Since employees pay an increasingly higher percentage of the cost of benefits this is something that can be good for both the employer and employees.
I understand that many wellness programs are not effective or successful because they are not backed by strong incentives. And in very large companies that experience high turnover the benefits of wellness programs may never be realized by the employer.
Given everything above, please let me know why you are not a fan of corporate wellness programs and why you believe HR has no role in the process.
It appears that Jon didn’t follow the links that I provided to him, so I thought that we could engage in a more public conversation. Here are my thoughts (once again) on corporate wellness programs.
- Successful wellness programs with a clear ROI
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 19 comments… read them below or add one }
First of all… (don’t ya hate comments that start that way?)… I am not a fan of any corporate initiative that seeks to slither into my personal life and dictate how I should live. The key in that sentence is “dictate.”
However, I do believe companies have a right to do what they think will make them more competitive in the marketplace – capitalism isn’t all bad. Organizations already (whether for good or bad) get involved in an employee’s life – through background checks, credit checks, etc. – and make decisions about whether to hire or fire based on those data points. Wellness is one additional data point.
Wellness programs that are designed to influence employees to gain a greater understanding of health issues, participate in healthier activities and generally increase their health status – without penalizing those that don’t participate, are fine – but when you begin to penalize people for their behaviors – or penalize them for other peoples behaviors – I do think that crosses the line.
Now, we can have a discussion on what is a penalty. Is paying higher insurance premiums a penalty? Should a company subsidize poor health decisions or should the employee? I’m of the opinion if I want to participate in riskier behaviors I should bear the brunt of that decision – not the 100 or so other employees who don’t make that same decision. I don’t see that as a penalty as much as I see that as a decision cost – I make the decision – I bear the cost.
Nationalized health care is a different issue… we don’t have it and therefore, isn’t germane in a discussion of whether corporate wellness programs are good or bad.
There is evidence that companies save money by reducing health care costs via wellness initiatives ( http://tinyurl.com/8sxvdg )
(BTW – I did check out the links you provided in the post…)
Thanks for starting by brain up this morning! Merry Christmas and watch out for that extra helping of pie tomorrow – ya don’t want the boss to know about it!
I don’t think Jon is going to have a lot of success “changing the behavior of employees” if he doesn’t spend more time listening. I almost spewed my tea out my nose when his last line asked why you’re not a fan of corporate wellness programs. Um, “please see above”?
Laurie, I just don’t think wellness programs work without getting all kinds of invasive. I don’t doubt that companies will march toward some lifestyle (read: fat) penalties. But woe to the first one to go there. The ton of bricks — and tons of employees — will fall on their head. Until then, there’s money in being the program de jour. BTW: My sense is that you could easily come up with one that works…and if you do, take the money.
Laurie,
I did a stint at a big PBM and was intimately involved with wellness initiatives. I must concur, wellness programs are ineffective. The data that supports them show little more than a Hawthorne effect. It seems that people feel better and are more productive when you pay a little more attention to them. A healthy does of leadership would show better results than any wellness program, in which I’ve been involved.
Here’s a stat I love:
75% of your risk of dying early (before the mean life expectancy) is comprised of 2 factors: 1) your satisfaction with your job, 2) your socioeconomic status.
We spend $2+ trillion/year on the other 25%!
I wrote a little about this and about an excellent book here:
http://clubofcos.org/2008/06/17/an-employer-health-solution/
Keep rockin’!
Ben out!
Since I’m unlucky enough to be on the Wellness committee (what committee am I not on?) I can see the lack of consistent improvement or change. Frankly, I wish they would take the money they are planning on spending this year on weight loss initiatives and have a nurse practitioner come on site once or twice a week. That I think would be a great return on investment.
You know what’s more annoying than the wellness programs you love to hate on?
The fact that getting health insurance through employers is the only reasonable way of getting insurance. That any decent sized employer has to carry it regardless of cost. And if you have to make adjustments to your heath insurance plan from year to year because of substantial cost increases, the employer is on the receiving end of that misery.
Day to day, those things are about a billion times worse than any wellness plan.
So why do I care if you’re fat? Because we are covering a substantial amount of both the group and cost burden of your insurance. Your health directly impacts the cost of doing business. That’s the ONLY reason I care. Otherwise, I’d go Sir Mixalot on you and say I like big butts.
Wellness solutions aren’t the answer but I don’t think railing against them and the employers who use them to try to manage costs works for me (unless it is this guy of course). Employers are trying to grapple with a painfully broken solution. I don’t blame a single one for trying to deal with it in a way that doesn’t reduce the benefits paid to employees.
The only solution in my mind is one that isn’t attached to employment. There are obviously a lot of solutions out there including ones with more personal responsibility built in but I could really care less at this point in my life. The current system is dumb. I don’t blame employees or employers who are futile in their attempts to try to figure this out.
OMG. Lance is talking about butts!
—
HELLO BEN!
—
You don’t even want to know what I’m learning right now through my Certified Employee Benefits Specialist courses about Wellness Programs. It gives me shivers. SHIVERS. That being said, it is because of those courses that I know a PBM is a Pharmacy Benefits Manager. I’m so conflicted about my education!
—
Paul – “Capitalism isn’t all bad.” Not for rich white dudes it’s not. And if anyone says otherwise, they can just use their platforms to claim dissenters are communists, et al. Yay?
Wenchy…?
@Paul That evidence is sketchy and anecdotal.
You can totally save money on health insurance by NOT COVERING stuff. Also, I agree, capitalism isn’t all that bad. I like nice things.
@Frank I’m working on my sorta-wellness-model right now!
@BenOut I will check out that link right away.
@HR Minion I support in-house massages. I’m just saying — you have the power on that committee to make BIG changes. Think deep tissue.
@Lance Actually, a substantial amount of insurance goes to cover children and women. So I’d like to go all Brave New World on you and grow babies in pods and put everyone on happy drugs.
@Wench Wait, I thought we liked capitalism because we like it when the marketplace gives us lots of kitty websites and lets us choose which ones we support. That’s the best kind of capitalism!
@Paul Wenchy has a point that capitalism is mostly good if you’re rich and oppressive and difficult if you’re poor. Americans believe in an ownership society: you’re on your own, suckers. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Not very fair and not always realistic.
Laurie – I don’t get why companies don’t clamor for nationalized healthcare. It seems like the obvious and absolute best solution cost-wise.
Also to Ben’s point, I agree that my personal wellness at any given moment depends most on my level of job engagement/enjoyment.
I’m with you, Amy. Some companies are clamoring, but political forces against ’socialism’ are strong. I hope this fear dies out with the baby boomers.
Honestly I think you are a pretty good example of the problems that you declare to be as troublesome as they are. You need to be pushged into action when inaction is your only sense of reality. Your fat and unwillingness to do anything about it forces health costs to push corporates into action for you. Wellness programs should be mandatory.
Hey Bret, I’m not an example of anything. Last I checked, I’m not fat — not that it matters because chumps like you are the real problem. If you’d spend less time judging people and more time learning a thing or two about the real world, real issues, real concerns, the world would be a better place. Fat people are not the enemy. Assholes are the enemy. Assholes make it more expensive to do business. Assholes stop innovation. Assholes make assumptions and then make important decisions based on little or no fact.
Assholes.
Bret, are you an asshole?
Interesting comments, all.
I can’t get behind a nationalized health insurance scheme. We’ll never get special interests our of D.C. However, I’m getting a little giddy about a state-level insurance scheme.
Everyone under 65 would be covered. Medicaid and work comp would be obviated (Hallelujah!). Wellness (in terms of job satisfaction and SES would be supported) and EFFECTIVE care would be covered for all disease. All this for a 12% payroll tax on employers. The current cost of health insurance for employers is the equivalent of 9% to 14% of payroll, with double-digit increase the norm.
I think we can get a cleaner administration of health care at the state level. It also introduces some competition between states. That would be good for business and residents. Someone much smarter than I came up with the scheme. It’s the best I’ve seen, to date. If your interested in this template for state provided health insurance I’ll email an article (.pdf). Email me at BenjaminAt067@network.hrmtoday.com .
Yes Laurie, Bret is an Asshole.
Random general comment. Thanks for making such an amusing blog. It’s very educational and it’s nice to know of a fellow punk rock chick who is able to make it in the corporate world. I recently found myself in need of going to school to make the transition. Coincidentally, it’s primarily because I’m in desperate need of health benefits.
Hi Laurie and thanks everyone for the feedback.
I still think anyone who is in the NYC area who can make it on January 15th should attend our wellness event for the following reasons.
1) It is only $30
2) You get a healthy lunch
3) You can come early or stay late and use all of the facilities of the very cool Club H Fitness (55th bet. 9th and 10th)
4) Your $30 will go to a good cause (you choose one of four charities and can write a check directly to one of those organizations).
Even if you don’t think wellness initiatives work, the speaker is great and it’s a really good value and can help a worthy cause.
Please go to the following link for all the details and the registration form:
http://mailer.singernelson.com/m/15Jan09.pdf
Happy holidays,
Jon
At the risk of sounding completely obvious,companies (especially the ones that are self-insured) want wellness programs or their employee population to remain relatively healthy. Reason being, there will always be a pool of employees who fall into a certain demographic that will never go to the doctor. There will also be a certain group of employees who will over utilize the insurance, thus driving up the cost for everyone.
Before anyone gets too giddy about a common “statewide” based coverage. I would suggest researching Massachusetts Commonwealth Care and the pro’s and con’s of the system. From the HR perspective, I would also raise the question is a system like “Commonwealth Care” truly good for the company and the employees?
I have to agree with Laurie, I think wellness programs are a bunch of shiite.
Wellness and self-care is a challenge when you work for an employer, as I once did, who outlines the amount of time per day you should spend on “biology breaks” – as in, time in the loo.
Walking on a break or lumch or having a healthy fresh meal is ideal. The right choices are always ideal. But in my last two jobs, I was so overwhelmed with deadlines and work that leaving my desk for lunch was a rarity.
I hate “movements” but the ROWE people might be on to something. Let me get out and get fresh air whenever and wherever I want, as long as I’m hitting my goals, meeting my deadlines and am available for communication.
The argument that employees should bear the burden of their own “risky” behavior only ever seems to apply to smoking or being fat. Of the two, only smoking is an actual behavior that people engage in. People are fat for all kinds of reasons, and only some of those fat people use additional health care resources because of their weight.
And more troubling to me–I am “only” “overweight” and look pretty average, so I probably wouldn’t get the bulk of the gigantic health-care penalty dump that many companies would like to take on me and other fat people, but I know many people who are classified as obese yet live a healthy lifestyle with moderate exercise and food intake–just like many thin people. Tell some of these people they have to lose weight in order to retain health benefits or keep their jobs, and they will have to starve themselves or make exercise a second full-time job–in short, live a totally unrealistic lifestyle to force their bodies into a shape they aren’t meant to be–to accomplish it. If even that works. At that point you are dictating changes that just aren’t within many people’s power to accomplish with any kind of reasonable effort. I think that achieving a healthier (which does not necessarily mean “calorie-restricted”) diet and exercising are worthy goals that on their own improve people’s health, not so much the weight loss that may or may not result when they are undertaken.
Meanwhile, plenty of thin people still go out to McDonald’s for lunch and forgo exercise in favor of those 50- or 60-hour weeks that seem to be so popular with employers, and they escape the wellness police’s notice. Which in my opinion is probably actually a good thing–do we really want to start scrutinizing and policing people’s eating and exercise habits in the workplace?–except that our society’s whole approach to “wellness” is broken and it makes me sad that people live such difficult, unsustainable, stress-filled lives with crappy food everywhere they turn and no time to exercise, and the only part of this anyone seems to care about is trying to get them to lose weight. If you’re thin, then nobody cares about you from a “wellness” standpoint. It would be too hard to actually change the conditions that are making people unwell, so we scapegoat their body mass.
To give an example (one that is often used but nevertheless IMO spot-on) of why I think the cost argument is fallacious, you never hear anybody arguing that someone who breaks an arm engaging in extreme sports (or perhaps more commonly, sustains some kind of overuse injury from distance running) is a drag on the health-care costs of others in their pool. I would argue that this is because these activities are valued in our society, while scapegoating and dehumanizing fat people is easy and painless as long as you’re thin. It may be a detached academic discussion that sounds harmless when thin managers try and decide what to “do about” wellness or their fat employees in terms of reducing health-care costs, but for those of us who are overweight or obese, it quickly starts to sound pretty sinister and burdensome.
Or I could have saved those 1093874012347 words and just said that I agree with this post 100% and was interested (but not surprised) to learn that there is not much evidence of actual results in terms of cost savings from wellness programs.
Thank you for this post. Here’s why I hate my company’s wellness initiatives:
1) They are totally condescending. What are we, six?
2) The incentives are insulting. $100 off my premium — not each payment, but $100 TOTAL? Slash my premium by 60% and then I’ll join your stupid activities.
3) They focus on the most unhealthy,the very people who are least likely to engage in their rah-rah superficial panacea. I’m extremely healthy, don’t smoke, am slim, have a high level of fitness — I’m not interested in taking 10,000 steps because I’m way beyond that. So where’s my reward? A free low-quality pedometer is not a good reward.