Worksite Wellness Programs at the corporate level are beneficial, right? Wellness statistics clearly show that such Worksite Wellness Programs are not only cost-effective to the organization but can assist the employee in developing a healthier lifestyle. With the rising cost of healthcare, Worksite Wellness Programs simply make sense. So where does the problem come in? Let’s examine the topic from both perspectives.
Worksite Wellness Programs: The Good
• A sampling of return on investment for Worksite 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 Worksite Wellness Programs have realized 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 realized a $15.60 return on investment for every dollar spent due to a 20% reduction in rates of absence. (Hardy,A. (2005). At the Top Of The Class. WELCOA’s Absolute Advantage Magazine, 5(1), 14-20.)
• Worksite 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 employer, gave staff members who filled out a health risk assessment a significant discount on their health insurance premium. (Holland, Kelley, The New York Times, July 22, 2007.)
Worksite 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 Worksite Wellness Programs.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)
• Clarian Health, based in Indianapolis, Will begin lowering employee paychecks by $10.00 for every employee who has a Body Mass Index (BMI) of greater than 29.9 because not enough staff members 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 employer’s antitobacco use policy violated his civil rights. The employer has a policy against hiring staff members who smoke and Mr. Rodrigues’drug screen was positive for nicotine.(Holland, Kelley, The New York Times,July 22,2007.)
• employee 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 staff members by hitting them where it hurts the most, in their pocketbook, does not appear to be a favorable approach to molding human behavior.
Such tactics may result in increased resentments and retaliation, primarily in the form of rates of absence 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 staff members to have a stake in the decision-making may yield the greatest dividends to both employer and employee.The motivation and resolve needed to change unhealthy lifestyle habits can best be derived from the basic tenets of encouragement, respect and support.
Leave a Reply