Employee Health Promotion

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

Employee Health Promotion Programs: The Good
• A sampling of return on investment for Employee 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 Experts, www.wellnessimprovementexperts.com, Albuquerque, New Mexico.)
• Companies with Employee Health Promotion 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.)
• Employee Health Promotion 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 business, 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.)

Employee Health Promotion 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 Employee Health Promotion Programs.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)
• Clarian Health, based in Indianapolis, Will start reducing 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 business’s antismoking policy violated his civil rights. The business 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 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 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.