Health promotion programs at the corporate level are beneficial, right? Health Promotion statistics obviously show that such health promotion programs aren’t only cost-effective to the organization but can assist the employee 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 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 percent. (Campbell,J., Health Promotion Improvement Specialists, www.wellnessimprovementprofessionals.com, Albuquerque, New Mexico.)
Businesses with health promotion 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 staff members 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.)
Health promotion programs provide the structure, encouragement, incentives and ongoing support that many person need for make lifestyle changes.
Workers also realize returns on their efforts. FiServ, a financial services technology business, gave workers who filled out a health risk (assessment|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 business to tell us to eat our veggies or lose 30 pounds? Some companies are doing just that and at least one lawsuit has resulted because of it.
Three hundred companies have requested assistance from a national employment and labor law firm to institute more assertive health promotion programs.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)
Clarian Health, based in Indianapolis, Will start decling employee paychecks by $10.00 for every employee who’s 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 company, Scotts Miracle-Gro, because he believed the company’s antitobacco use policy violated his civil rights. the company has a policy against hiring employees 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 below the American Citizens with Disabilities Act.(Cornwell, Lisa, Associated Press, Albuquerque Journal, September 10,2007.)
Penalizing workers 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 programs, like 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 business and employee.
The motivation and resolve needed to change unhealthful lifestyle habits can best be derived from the basic tenets of encouragement, respect and support.
