Workplace Wellness Programs – The Good and The Bad

Workplace Wellness Programs at the company 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 medical 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 realized a 28% reduction in sick leave, a 26% reduction in adjunctive health care 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 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 company, 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.)

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 businesses are doing just that and at least one lawsuit has resulted because of it.
• Three hundred businesses 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 reducing worker paychecks by $10.00 for every worker 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 company’s antismoking policy violated his civil rights. The company 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.)
• 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 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 raised resentments and retaliation, primarily in the form of absenteeism and presenteeism (decreased productivity on the job.) Voluntary, incentive-based programs, 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 worker.The motivation and resolve needed to change unhealthy lifestyle habits can best be derived from the basic tenets of encouragement, respect and support.