fit for the job: what can workplace wellness programs deliver? · what can workplace wellness...
TRANSCRIPT
Fit for the Job: What Can Workplace Wellness Programs Deliver?
The Evidence Base for Worksite Health Promotion and Disease Prevention ProgramsRon Z. Goetzel, Ph.D. , Emory University and Thomson Reuters HealthcareNational Health Policy ForumReserve Officers Association Friday, November 6, 2009
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
2
U.S. Business Concerns About Healthcare
• The United States spent $2.24 trillion in healthcare in 2007, or $7,421 for every man, woman and child.
• Private employers contributed 77% to health insurance premiums, a 6.1% increase over 2006
• Private sector share of total spending is 53.7%
• National health expenditure growth trends are expected
to average about 6.6% per year through 2015.
• Health expenditures as percent of GDP:
– 7.2 % in 1970 – 16.2 % 2007 – 19.7 % in 2017 (est)– 25.0 % by 2030 (est)
Source: Hartman et al., Health Affairs, 28:1, Jan/Feb, 2009, 246.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
3
EMPLOYER COSTS ARE RISING RAPIDLY
3
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
4
WHY IS HEALTH CARE SO EXPENSIVE?
• Rise in spending for treated diseases (37%)– Innovation/advancing technology (pharmacologic, devices,
treatments)• Newborn delivery costs – five-fold increase from 1987-2002
– NICU, incubators, ventilators, C-sections• New/better medicines for treating disease
– Depression –• SSRI introduction -- 45% treated in 1987 to 80% treated in 1997
– Allergies (Claritan, Allegra,…)• New treatment thresholds
– Blood pressure– High blood glucose– Hyperlipidemia
Ken Thorpe
Source: K.E. Thorpe, "The Rise in Health Care Spending and What to Do About It," Health Affairs 24, no. 6 (2005): 1436-1445; and K.E. Thorpe et al., "The Impact of Obesity on Rising Medical Spending," Health Affairs 23, no. 6 (2004): 480-486.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
5
WHY IS HEALTH CARE SO EXPENSIVE? (THORPE - PART 2)• Rise in the prevalence of disease (63%)
– About ¾ of all health care spending in the U.S. is focused on patients who have one or more chronic health conditions
– Chronically ill patients only receive 56% of clinically recommended preventive health services
• And 27% of the rise in healthcare costs is associated with increases in obesity rates
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
6
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS1986
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
7
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS1987
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
8
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS1988
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
9
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS1989
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
10
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1990
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
11
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1991
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
12
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1992
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
13
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1993
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
14
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1994
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
15
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1995
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
16
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1996
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
17
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1997
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
18
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1998
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
19
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 1999
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
20
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 2000
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
21
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 2001
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
22
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 2002
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
23
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 2003
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
24
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 2004
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
25
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTS 2005
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
26
OBESITY TRENDS* AMONG U.S. ADULTSBRFSS, 2006
(*BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person)
No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%No Data <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30%
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
27
OBESITY TRENDS* AMONG U.S. ADULTSBRFSS, 2007
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
28
OBESITY TRENDS AMONG U.S. ADULTSBRFSS, 2008
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
29
ENVIRONMENTAL CAUSES OF OBESITY
•More driving• Rise in car ownership• Increase in driving shorter distances• Less walking and bicycling
•At home, more convenience• Increase use of “labor saving” devices• Increase in ready-made foods• Increase in television viewing, computers, and video games
•At work• Sedentary occupational fields (“knowledge workers”)
•In public• More elevators, escalators, automatic doors and moving sidewalks
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
30
• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates…
• 80% of heart disease and stroke• 80% of type 2 diabetes• 40% of cancer
…could be prevented if only Americans were to do three things:
Stop smokingStart eating healthyGet in shape
Bottom Line: The vast majority of chronic disease can be prevented or better managed
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
31
CONVINCE ME…
Why should an employer invest in the health and well-being of its workers?
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
32
IT SEEMS SO LOGICAL…
…if you improve the health and well being of your employees…
…quality of life improves
…healthcare utilization is reduced
…disability is controlled
…productivity is enhanced
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
33
THE LOGIC FLOW:
A large proportion of diseases and disorders from which people suffer is preventable;
Modifiable health risk factors are precursors to many diseases and disorders, and premature death;
Many modifiable health risks are associated with increased health care costs and diminished productivity within a relatively short time window;
Modifiable health risks can be improved through effective health promotion and disease prevention programs;
Improvements in the health risk profile of a population can lead to reductions in health costs and improvements in productivity;
Well-designed and well-implemented programs can be cost/beneficial – they can save more money than they cost, thus producing a positive return on investment (ROI).
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
34
• A large proportion of diseases and disorders is preventable. Modifiable health riskfactors are precursors to a large number of diseases and disorders and to prematuredeath (Healthy People 2000, 2010, Amler & Dull, 1987, Breslow, 1993, McGinnis & Foege, 1993, Mokdad et al., 2004).
• Many modifiable health risks are associated with increased health care costs withina relatively short time window (Milliman & Robinson, 1987, Yen et al., 1992, Goetzel,et al., 1998, Anderson et al., 2000, Bertera, 1991, Pronk, 1999).
• Modifiable health risks can be improved through workplace sponsored health promotion and disease prevention programs (Wilson et al., 1996, Heaney & Goetzel, 1997, Pelletier, 1999).
• Improvements in the health risk profile of a population can lead to reductions in healthcosts (Edington et al., 2001, Goetzel et al., 1999).
• Worksite health promotion and disease prevention programs save companies moneyin health care expenditures and produce a positive ROI (Johnson & Johnson 2002,Citibank 1999-2000, Procter and Gamble 1998, Chevron 1998, California Public RetirementSystem 1994, Bank of America 1993, Dupont 1990, Highmark, 2008).
THE EVIDENCE
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
35
Drill down…
• Medical
• Absence/work loss
• Presenteeism
• Risk factors
POOR HEALTH COSTS MONEY
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
36
Medical, Drug, Absence, STD Expenditures (1999 annual $ per eligible),by Component
Source: Goetzel, Hawkins, Ozminkowski, Wang, JOEM 45:1, 5–14, January 2003.
$0 $50 $100 $150 $200 $250
Angina Pectoris, Chronic Maintenance
Essential Hypertension, Chronic Maintenaince
Diabetes Mellitus, Chronic Maintenance
Mechanical Low Back Disor.
Acute Myocardial Infarction
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Dis.
Back Disor. Not Specified as Low Back
Trauma to Spine & Spinal Cord
Sinusitis
Dis. of ENT or Mastoid Process NEC
$ per eligible employee
MedicalAbsenceDisability
TOP 10 PHYSICAL HEALTH CONDITIONS
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
37
Using Average Impairment and Prevalence Rates for Presenteeism($23.15/hour wage estimate)
Source: Goetzel, Long, Ozminkowski, et al. JOEM 46:4, April, 2004)
THE BIG PICTURE: OVERALL BURDEN OF ILLNESS BY CONDITION
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
38
Percent Difference in Medical Expenditures: High-Risk versus Lower-Risk Employees
Independent effects after adjustmentN = 46,02670.2
46.334.8
21.4 19.7 14.5 11.7 10.4-9.3-3.0-0.8
-50
-25
0
25
50
75
100
Perc
ent
Dep
ress
ion
Stre
ss
Glu
cose
Wei
ght
Toba
cco-
Past
Toba
cco
Blo
od p
ress
ure
Exer
cise
Cho
lest
erol
Alc
ohol
Eatin
g
INCREMENTAL IMPACT OF TEN MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS ON MEDICAL EXPENDITURES
Goetzel RZ, Anderson DR, Whitmer RW, Ozminkowski RJ, et al., Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 40 (10) (1998): 843–854.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
39
HEALTH RISKS AFFECT WORKERS’ PRODUCTIVITY
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
40
EXAMINING RISK FACTORS AND PRESENTEEISM
Indicates a Statistically Significant difference between those with risk and those without risk.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
41
Pepsi Bottling Group – Cost of Overweight/Obese Employees
Adjusted predicted annual costs for employees by BMI
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000M
edic
al
STD
WC
Pres
ente
eism
Abs
ence
s
Tota
lAdj
uste
d pr
edic
ted
annu
al c
ost
NormalOverweightClass IClass IIClass III
Difference between combined overweight/obese categories and normal weight is displayed
Diff = 25%, $987
Diff = 10%, $28
Diff = 7%, $49
Diff = 26%, $186*
Diff = 58%, $111*
Diff = 29%, $613*
74% of the sample are overweight or obese
*At least one difference significant at the 0.05 level
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
42
OUTCOMES OF MULTI-COMPONENT WORKSITE HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAM
Purpose: Critically review evaluation studies of multi-component worksite health promotion programs.
Methods: Comprehensive review of 47 CDC and author generated studies covering the period of 1978-1996.
Findings:• Programs vary tremendously in comprehensiveness, intensity & duration. • Providing opportunities for individualized risk reduction counseling, within the context of comprehensive programming, may be the critical component of effective programs.
Ref: Heaney & Goetzel, 1997, American Journal of Health Promotion, 11:3, January/February, 1997
Literature Review
43
EVALUATION OF WORKSITE HEALTH PROMOTION PROGRAMS--
Worksite Health Promotion TeamRobin Soler, PhDDavid Hopkins, MD, MPHSima Razi, MPHKimberly Leeks, PhD, MPHMatt Griffith, MPH
Community Guide
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
44
SUMMARY RESULTS AND TEAM CONSENSUS
OutcomeBody of
EvidenceConsistent
ResultsMagnitude of
Effect Finding
Alcohol Use 7 Yes Variable Sufficient
Fruits & Vegetables
% Fat Intake
711
No
Yes
0.16 serving
+8%
Insufficient
Strong
% Change in Those Physically Active
17 Yes +12.7% Sufficient
Tobacco Use
Prevalence
Cessation
2223 (9)
Yes
Yes
–2.2 pct pt
3.5 pct pt
Strong
Seat Belt Non-Use 10 Yes –35.4% Sufficient
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
45
OutcomeBody of
EvidenceConsistent
Results Magnitude of Effect Finding
Diastolic blood pressure
Systolic blood pressure
Risk prevalence
161811
Yes
Yes
Yes
Diastolic:–1.9 mm Hq
Systolic:–3.0 mm Hg
–3.4 pct pt
Strong
BMI
Weight
% body fat
Risk prevalence
61245
Yes
No
Yes
No
–0.5 pt BMI
–0.56 pounds
–2.2% body fat
–2.2% at risk
Insufficient
Total Cholesterol
HDL Cholesterol
Risk prevalence
18711
Yes
No
Yes
–5.0 mg/dL (total)
+1.1 mg/dL
–6.6 pct pt
Strong
Fitness 5 Yes Small Insufficient
SUMMARY RESULTS AND TEAM CONSENSUS
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
46
SUMMARY RESULTS AND TEAM CONSENSUS
OutcomeBody of
EvidenceConsistent
ResultsMagnitude of
Effect Finding
Estimated Risk 15 Yes Moderate Sufficient
Healthcare Use 6 Yes Moderate Sufficient
Worker Productivity 10 Yes Moderate Strong
47
CASE STUDIES
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
48
CITIBANK, N.A.HEALTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM EVALUATION
• Title: Citibank Health Management Program (HMP)
• Industry: Banking/Finance
• Target Population: 47,838 active employees eligible for medical benefits
• Description:– A comprehensive multi-component health management program– Aims to help employees improve health behaviors, better manage
chronic conditions, and reduce demand for unnecessary and inappropriate health services,
– And, in turn, reduce prevalence of preventable diseases, show significant cost savings, and achieve a positive ROI.
• Citations:• Ozminkowski, R.J., Goetzel, R.Z., Smith, M.W., Cantor, R.I., Shaunghnessy, A., & Harrison, M. (2000).
The Impact of the Citibank, N.A., Health Management Program on Changes in Employee Health Risks Over Time. JOEM, 42(5), 502-511.
• Ozminkowski, R.J., Dunn, R.L., Goetzel, R.Z., Cantor, R.I., Murnane, J., & Harrison, M. (1999). A Return on Investment Evaluation of the Citibank, N.A., Health Management Program. AJHP, 44(1), 31-43.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
49
Program Components
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
50
Program Participation• All 47,838 active employees were eligible to
participate.
• The participation rate was 54.3 percent.
• Participants received a $10 credit toward Citibank’s Choices benefit plan enrollment for the following year.
• Approximately 3,000 employees participated in the high risk program each year it was offered.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
51
CITIBANK RESULTS
Number and Percent of Program Participants at High Risk at First and Last HRA by Risk Category (N=9,234 employees tracked over an average of two years)
Ozminkowski, R.J., Goetzel, R.Z., et al., Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine42: 5, May, 2000, 502–511.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
52
CITIBANK RESULTS
*Net Improvement refers to the number of categories in which risk improved minus number of categories in which risk stayed the same or worsened.
**Impact = change in expenditures for net improvers minus change for others. Negative values imply program savings, since expenditures did not increase as much over time for those who improved, compared to all others
† p < 0.05, ‡ p < 0.01
Unadjusted Impact**
Adjusted Impact**
Net improvement* of at least 1 category versus others(N = 1,706)
-$1.86† -$1.91
Net improvement* of at least 2 categories versus others (N = 391)
-$5.34 -$3.06
Net improvement* of at least 3 categories versus others (N = 62)
-$146.87† -$145.77 ‡
Impact of improvement in risk categories on medical expenditures per month
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
53
CITIBANK: MEDICAL SAVINGS-ADJUSTED MEAN NET PAYMENTS
$170
$212
$180
$257
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
Pre-HRA Post-HRA
Time Period
All Participantsn=11,219
Non-Participantsn=11,714
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
54
CITIBANK HEALTH MANAGEMENT PROGRAM ROI• Program costs = $1.9 million*
• Program benefits = $8.9 million*
• Program savings = $7.0 million*
ROI = $4.7 in benefits for every $1 in costs
Notes:
• 1996 dollars @ 0 percent discount
• Slightly lower ROI estimates after discounting by either 3% or 5% per year.
• Results very similar to RCT conducted of same Healthtrac program, by Fries, et al.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
55
JOHNSON & JOHNSONHEALTH AND WELLNESS PROGRAM EVALUATION
• Title: J & J Health and Wellness Program (H & W) • Industry: Healthcare• Target Population: 43,000 U.S. based employees• Description:
– Comprehensive, multi-component worksite health promotion program
– Evolved from LIVE FOR LIFE in 1979
• Citations:• Goetzel, R.Z., Ozminkowski, R.J., Bruno, J.A., Rutter, K.R., Isaac, F., & Wang, S. (2002).
The Long-term Impact of Johnson & Johnson’s Health & Wellness Program on Employee Health Risks. JOEM, 44(5), 417-424.
• Ozminkowski, R.J., Ling, D., Goetzel, R.Z., Bruno, J.A., Rutter, K.R., Isaac, F., & Wang, S. (2002). Long-term Impact of Johnson & Johnson’s Health & Wellness Program on Health Care Utilization and Expenditures. JOEM, 44(1), 21-29.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
56
Lifestyle Benefit Incentive
• All employees offered Health Profile
• Employees assessed to be at risk for smoking, blood pressure or cholesterol were invited to participate in a health management program
• Health care prices discounted by $500
• Employees not participating in Health Profile or follow-up health improvement program lose the $500 discount
• Result: 94% Participation Rate
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
57
HEALTH & WELLNESS PROGRAM IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE HEALTH RISKS (N=4,586)
66.2%
43.2%
49.6%
41.0%
45.8%
35.1%32.7%
23.9%
9.7%
1.3%4.5%
2.7% 3.5%2.9%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
HighCholes.
Low FiberIntake
PoorExerciseHabits
CigaretteSmoking
High BP Seat Beltuse
Drinking& Driving
Time 1 Health ProfileTime 2 Health Profile
High Risk Group
After an average of 2¾ years, risks were reduced in eight categories but increased in four related categories: body weight, dietary fat consumption, risk for diabetes, and cigar use.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
58
JOHNSON & JOHNSON HEALTH & WELLNESS PROGRAM IMPACT ON MEDICAL COSTS
$224.66
$118.67
$70.89
$45.17
($10.87)
($50.00) $0.00 $50.00 $100.00 $150.00 $200.00 $250.00
OVERALL SAVINGS
Inpatient Days
Mental Health Visits
Outpatient/Doctor OfficeVisits
ER Visits
$225 Annual Medical Savings/ Employee/Year
since 1995
N=18,331 – Ozminkowski et al, 2002
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
59
Per Employee Per Year, 1995 – 1999 -- Weighted by sample sizes that range from N = 8,927 – 18,331, depending upon years analyzed
$(100.00)
$-
$100.00
$200.00
$300.00
$400.00
$500.00
IP daysMH visitsOP visitsER visits
IP days $60.76 $94.25 $164.72 $195.80 MH visits $78.42 $55.05 $51.49 $103.43 OP visits $1.54 $23.57 $186.03 $181.27 ER visits $(12.15) $(14.43) $(7.27) $(8.06)
1 2 3 4
Years Post Implementation
INFLATION-ADJUSTED, DISCOUNTED HEALTH AND WELLNESS PROGRAM CUMULATIVE SAVINGS
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
60
PROCTER & GAMBLE
0200400600800
10001200140016001800
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Participants Non-Participants
Adjusted for age and gender; Significant at p < .05*In year 3 participant costs were 29% lower producing an ROI of 1.49 to 1.00
Ref: Goetzel, R.Z., Jacobson, B.H., Aldana, S.G., Vardell, K., and Yee, L. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 40:4, April, 1998.
Total Annual Medical Costs For Participants and Non-Participants In Health Check (1990 - 1992)
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
61
HIGHMARK ROI STUDY
• Regional health plan with approximately 12,000 workers
• Headquartered in Pittsburgh, with a major operating facility in Camp Hill, PA and other locations in Johnstown, Erie, and Williamsport, PA.
• Worksite Health Promotion Program (introduced in 2002)– health risk assessments (HRAs)– online programs in nutrition, weight management and stress management– tobacco cessation programs– on-site nutrition and stress classes– individual nutrition and tobacco cessation coaching– biometric screenings– six- to twelve-week campaigns to increase fitness participation and
awareness of disease prevention strategies– state-of-the-art fitness centers (Pittsburgh and Camp Hill, PA)
Source: Naydeck, Pearson, Ozminkowski, Day, Goetzel. The Impact of the Highmark Employee Wellness Programs on Four-Year Healthcare Costs. JOEM, 50:2, February 2008
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
62
Annual growth in net payments –for matched-participants and non-participants over four years – resulting in crude savings of ~$200/employee/year
Annual Growth in Costs, Highmark
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Net
pay,
in $
2005
Participants Controls
Start of Pgm
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
63
Cost-Benefit (ROI) Analysis
Wellness Program Costs, Highmark, inflation-adjusted to 2005 dollars
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
64
So, what is important to employers? • Financial outcomes
– Cost savings, return on investment (ROI) and net present value (NPV)
– Where to find savings:• Medical costs• Absenteeism • Short term disability (STD)• Presenteeism
• Health outcomes– Adherence to evidence based medicine– Behavior change, risk reduction, health improvement
• Quality of life (humanistic) and productivity outcomes– Improvement in quality of life– Improved “functioning” and productivity
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
65
Policy Implications• Pass Tom Harkin’s Healthy Workforce Act (S.1753)
– Companies that spend $400 per employee on wellness would earn a tax credit of up to $200 per employee for the first 200 employees and $100 per employee for the rest of the payroll.
• Provide wellness program tax credits for employers and employees (HR 853, Knollenberg; HR 3717/S 1753/S 1754, Udall/Harkin; S 158, Collins).
• Sponsor venues for public recognition of exemplary programs and business leaders supporting these programs (e.g., Koop Awards).
• Identify and disseminate best practices.
• Establish public-private technical assistance and consulting services to support employer efforts.
• Increase funding of “real world” research demonstrations.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
66
Other Policy Options• Introduce federal legislation promoting workers’ health, e.g.,
smoke-free workplace policies.
• Initiate pilot studies at local/state/federal agencies that test innovative models of health promotion among public employers.
• Make available tools and resources that employers can use to run programs, e.g., evaluation instruments, financial modeling programs.
• Establish ongoing measurement and performance tracking systems specific to workplace health promotion and reporting relevant metrics related to employer efforts, e.g., “healthiest places to work.”
• Assure a clear focus on workplaces as an important venue for health system reform.
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
©20
09 T
hom
son
Reu
ters
67
Summary
Focusing on improving the health and quality of people’s lives will improve the productivity and competitiveness of our workers and citizens.
A growing body of scientific literature suggests that well-designed, evidence-based workplace health promotion programs can
Improve the health of workers and lower their risk for disease;
Save businesses money by reducing health-related losses and limiting absence and disability;
Heighten worker morale and work relations;
Improve worker productivity; and
Improve the financial performance of organizations instituting these programs.