Make us your home page

Weighing employee wellness programs

As a couch enthusiast of some renown, I'm generally opposed to any form of mandated physical exertion.

Our bodies know it's time to exercise when the guilt of not doing so outweighs the pleasure of eating ice cream in a comfy chair, or when said chair breaks under our weight.

Unfortunately, our life decisions do come with "consequences," dreadfully annoying things invented by Communists. And the consequences of poor health choices can include increased health-care costs.

Which brings us to "corporate wellness programs" or "wellness incentives," which are becoming common across the country. The general idea is if you take advantage of company-sponsored health initiatives — from smoking cessation to weight loss — and meet certain goals, you save money on health insurance.

This is not, at first glance, a terrible idea. While nobody likes being told what to do, it's tough to argue with the basic premise that being healthy is good.

And though executives may have other priorities than caring about how clogged your arteries are, there seems to be potential savings from reduced absenteeism and fewer employees dying in the break room mid cheeseburger.

Not to mention quieting the grumbling of workers who live healthy lives about having to offset the medical costs of a co-worker who sucks down Pringles like a Hoover.

But two new studies published this month in the journal Health Affairs raise questions about the overall efficacy and fairness of workplace wellness initiatives.

Gautam Gowrisankaran, an economics professor at the University of Arizona, examined the wellness program at a St. Louis hospital and found the rate of hospitalization for conditions targeted by the program dropped 41 percent. But this led to no net reduction in health claim costs.

Gowrisankaran explained that people in the wellness program exhibited "more faithful adherence to medication and doctor visits," which partially offset savings from fewer hospitalizations. The program's health screenings also revealed problems that sent some employees to the doctor.

The lack of overall savings, Gowrisankaran said, didn't make the program a failure: "If you can reduce hospitalizations for things like heart attacks by 40 percent, that's a great thing for an employer."

Employees who took part in the program saved about $1,700 a year, so that carrot was certainly in place. But Gowrisankaran said he can understand the conflicting opinions about these programs.

"On the one hand, there's the argument that we need to get employees to take more charge of their own health and behavior, and anything we can do to incentivize that is good," he said. "On the other hand are people who are privacy advocates who don't want their employer to get in their way. If I want to enjoy my doughnut and my cigarette in the morning, that's up to me."

(I'll pause here while everyone takes a break to smoke a doughnut.)

The second study says: "Despite widespread enthusiasm for health-contingent programs, there is sparse evidence that these programs can reduce short- or even medium-term costs through health improvement."

Co-author Jill Horwitz, a law professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, said: "The premise is that if people do all these things, their health is going to improve, and they're going to save money. But many studies show these incentive programs don't lead to health improvement."

The study found mixed evidence that employees with the targeted health conditions or behaviors (obesity, hypertension, smoking) have higher health costs than other employees. And there wasn't much to show that financial incentives are good at changing behavior.

What troubles Horwitz is the possibility that such programs are shifting costs away from workers who are more likely to be healthy anyway and placing them on those who are less healthy — and less able to shoulder the cost.

From the study: "The prevalence of unhealthy conditions typically targeted by wellness programs is highest among people with low socioeconomic status."

One way to avoid this would be to offer the services without tying them to a financial reward.

"When it's not related to compensation, that might be less worrisome," Horwitz said. "When you're adjusting the price of health insurance, you're really adjusting somebody's compensation package."

Weighing employee wellness programs 03/23/13 [Last modified: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 6:48pm]
Photo reprints | Article reprints

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Tribune News Service.

Join the discussion: Click to view comments, add yours

  1. Tampa is 15th-most popular city to move to with U-Haul


    TAMPA —Tampa is undoubtedly a destination point, at least according to U-Haul.

    Tampa is the No. 15 destination for people moving with U-Haul trucks. | Times file photo
  2. Florida's economy growing faster than other big states and far better than U.S. overall


    When it comes to economic growth, Florida's running alongside the leading states and well ahead of the United States as a whole.

  3. Westshore Marina District project takes shape with another acquisition

    Real Estate

    TAMPA — One of Tampa Bay's prime waterfront areas took another major step toward redevelopment Friday as WCI Communities bought 2.35 acres in Westshore Marina District.

    WCI Communities, Lennar's high-end subsidiary,has paid $2.5 million for 2.35 acres in the Westshore Marina District for 35 townhomes. WCI is under contract  to buy an additional 9.5 acres.
[BTI Partners]
  4. Posh Guy Harvey RV park to open in Tampa Bay with $250,000 cottages


    HOLIDAY — Love those Guy Harvey T-shirts with the soaring marlins? In the not too distant future, you might be able to kick back in your own Guy Harvey cottage in the first-ever Guy Harvey RV park.

    Renderings of the clubhouse and an RV cottage site of the planned Guy Harvey Outpost Club & Resort Tarpon Springs.
[Guy Harvey Outpost Collection]
  5. Port Tampa Bay secures $9 million grant to deepen Big Bend Channel


    Port Tampa Bay has secured a $9 million grant from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the widening and deepening of the Big Bend Channel in southern Hillsborough County.