Posts from — December 2008

Workplace Wellness Programs at the corporate level are beneficial, right? Wellness statistics clearly show that such Workplace Wellness Programs are not only cost-effective to the organization but can assist the worker in developing a healthier lifestyle. With the increasing cost of health care, Workplace Wellness Programs simply make sense. So where does the problem come in? Let’s examine the topic from both perspectives.

Workplace Wellness Programs: The Good
• A sampling of return on investment for Workplace 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%. (Campbell,J., Wellness Improvement Experts, www.wellnessimprovementexperts.com, Albuquerque, New Mexico.)
• Companies with Workplace Wellness Programs have found a 28% reduction in sick leave, a 26% reduction in adjunctive healthcare costs and a 30% reduction in disability and workers compensation costs. (Health Affairs, Volume 21, No.2, March, 2002.)
• The Washoe county School District in Northern Nevada found a $15.60 return on investment for each 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.)
• Workplace Wellness Programs provide the structure, encouragement, incentives and ongoing support that many individuals need in order to make lifestyle changes.
• Employees also realize returns on their efforts. FiServ, a financial services technology organization, gave workers who filled out a health risk assessment a significant discount on their health insurance premium. (Holland, Kelley, The New York Times, July 22, 2007.)

Workplace Wellness Programs: The Bad
The flip side of the argument centers on basic human rights. Do we want/need our employer to tell us to eat our veggies or lose 30 pounds? Some organizations are doing just that and at least one lawsuit has resulted because of it.
• Three hundred organizations have requested assistance from a national employment and labor law firm to institute more aggressive Workplace Wellness Programs.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)
• Clarian Health, based in Indianapolis, Will begin lowering worker paychecks by $10.00 for every worker who has a Body Mass Index (BMI) of greater than 29.9 because not enough workers were utilizing their wellness services.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)
• Scott Rodrigues filed a suit against his prospective employer, Scotts Miracle-Gro, because he believed the organization’s antismoking policy violated his civil rights. The organization has a policy against hiring workers who smoke and Mr. Rodrigues’drug screen was positive for nicotine.(Holland, Kelley, The New York Times,July 22,2007.)
• worker advocates are concerned that health discrimination may not be covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)

Penalizing workers by hitting them hardest where it hurts the most, in their pocketbook, does not appear to be a a good 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 initiatives, such as the one in the Washoe County School District, can and do produce results. A positive attitude on the part of management along with an opportunity for workers to have a stake in the decision-making may yield the greatest dividends to both employer and worker.The motivation and resolve needed to change unhealthy lifestyle habits can best be derived from the basic tenets of encouragement, respect and support.

For well over a decade, research has been showing the effectiveness of Workplace Wellness Programs. For each dollar spent on Workplace Wellness Programs, the returns have been cost savings of between $2.30 and $10.10 in the areas of decreased absenteeism, fewer sick days, decreased WSIB/WCB claims, lowered health and insurance costs, and improvements to worker performance and productivity.

Statistics do show that Workplace Wellness Programs increase worker morale, improve the ability to attract and retain key employees, all while having more alert and productive workers. Some Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative return on investment statistics of note:

• Canada Life Insurance reported a return of $3.43 on Workplace Wellness Program, and an overall Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative return on investment of $6.85 on each corporate dollar invested on decreased turnover (32.4% lower), productivity gains and decreased medical claims,
• DuPont’s Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative pilot sites saw a saving of 11,726 disability days and a return of U.S. $2.05 for each dollar invested by the end of the second year,
• The Canadian government’s Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative return on investment was $1.95-$3.75 per worker per dollar spent (as found by Dr. Roy Shephard),
• Municipal workers in Toronto, missed 3.35 fewer days in the first six months of their Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative than workers not enrolled in the program,
• British Columbia Hydro workers enrolled in a Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative had a turnover rate of just 3.5% compared with a Company average of 10.3 percent,
• Johnson & Johnson estimated an average saving of U.S. $224.66 per worker per year for the four years examined after the program introduction, with the bulk of the savings being in the third and fourth years,
• Pacific Bell found that overall absenteeism decreased after beginning a Workplace Wellness Program,
• Coca Cola report saving $500 every year per worker after beginning a Workplace Wellness Program, with only 60% of their workers taking part,
• Coors Brewing Co. found that for each dollar spent on their Corporate Health and Wellness Initiative they saw a $5.50 return, and the workers who participated decreased their absentee rate by 18 percent, and
• Prudential Insurance Company found that the benefits costs for workers taking part in their program were $312, as opposed to $574 for non-participants