Wellness Programs A to Z

Health promotion programs at the corporate level are beneficial, right? Wellness statistics obviously show that such health promotion programs are not only cost-effective to the company but can assist the worker in developing a healthier lifestyle.

With the rising cost of healthcare, health promotion programs simply make sense. So where does the problem come in? Let’s examine the topic from both perspectives.

Health Promotion Programs –  the Good

• A sampling of corporate returns on investment for wellness programs –  Bank of America –  600%; General Motors – 370%; Pepsico –  300%; Citibank –  465%; and the Washoe County School District leading the pack at a whopping 1,560 percent. (Campbell,J., Wellness Improvement Specialists, www.wellnessimprovementprofessionals.com, Albuquerque, New Mexico.)

• Organizations with wellness programs have realized a 28 percent reduction in sick time, a 26 percent reduction in adjunctive health care costs and a 30 percent reduction in disability and employees compensation costs. (Health Affairs, Volume 21, No.2, March, 2002.)

• The Washoe county School District in Northern Nevada realized a $15.60 return on investment for every dollar spent due to a 20% reduction in absenteeism. (Hardy,A. (2005).  At the Top of the Class. WELCOA’s Absolute Advantage Magazine, 5(1), 14-20.)

• Wellness programs provide the structure, encouragement, incentives and ongoing support that many individuals need for make lifestyle changes.

• Staff Members also realize returns on their efforts. FiServ, a financial services technology business, gave staff who filled out a health risk appraisal a significant discount on their health insurance premium. (Holland, Kelley, the New York Times, July 22, 2007.)

Health Promotion Programs –  the Bad

The flip side of the argument centers on basic human rights. Do we want/need our company to tell us to eat our veggies or lose 30 pounds? Some businesses are doing just that and at least one lawsuit has resulted because of it.

• Three hundred businesses have requested assistance from a national employment and labor law firm to institute more assertive wellness programs.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)

• Clarian Health, based in Indianapolis, Will start decreasing staff member paychecks by $10.00 for every staff member who has a Body Mass Index  of greater than 29.9 because not enough employees were utilizing their wellness services.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)

• Scott Rodrigues filed a suit against his prospective company, Scotts Miracle-Gro, because he believed the company’s antismoking policy violated his civil rights.  The company has a policy against hiring staff who smoke and Mr. Rodrigues’drug screen was positive for nicotine.(Holland, Kelley, the New York Times,July 22,2007.)

• Staff Member advocates are concerned that health discrimination might not be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)

Penalizing staff members by hitting them hardest where it hurts the most,their pocketbook, doesn’t appear to be a favorable approach to molding human behavior.

Such tactics may lead to increased resentments and retaliation, primarily in the form of absenteeism and presenteeism (decreased productivity on the job.) Voluntary, incentive-based health promotion programs, like the one in the Washoe County School District, can and do produce results.

A positive attitude for executive management along with an opportunity for employees to have a stake in the decision-making may yield the greatest dividends to both corporation and worker.

The motivation and resolve needed to change unhealthful lifestyle habits can best be derived from the basic tenets of encouragement, respect and support.