Wellness Programs – the Good and the Bad.

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

With the rising cost of health care, wellness programs simply make sense. So where does the problem come in? Let us examine the topic from both perspectives.

Health Promotion Programs –  the Good

o  A sampling of corporate returns on investment for health promotion 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%. (Campbell,J., Wellness Improvement Professionals, www.wellnessimprovementexperts.com, Albuquerque, New Mexico.)

o  Organizations with health promotion programs have realized a 28% reduction in sick leave, a 26% reduction in adjunctive health care costs and a 30% reduction in disability and staff members compensation costs. (Health Affairs, Volume 21, No.2, March, 2002.)

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

o  Wellness programs provide the structure, encouragement, incentives and ongoing support that many person need in order to make lifestyle changes.

o  Workers also realize returns on their efforts. FiServ, a financial services technology corporation, gave staff members who filled out a health risk appraisal a meaningful discount on their medical 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 corporation to tell us to eat our veggies or lose 30 pounds? A number of corporations are doing just that and at least one lawsuit has resulted because of it.

o  Three hundred corporations have requested assistance from a national employment and labor law firm to institute more aggressive health promotion programs.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)

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

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

o  Worker advocates are concerned that health discrimination might not be covered below the American Citizens with Disabilities Act.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)

Penalizing personnel 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 result in increased resentments and retaliation, primarily in the form of absenteeism and presenteeism (decreased productivity on the job.) Voluntary, incentive-based wellness programs, like the one in the Washoe County School District, can and do produce results.

A positive attitude by senior level management along with an opportunity for staff members 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.