Employee Health Promotion Programs are proven to increase productivity and lower health care costs. For a business, that makes a difference in the bottom-line. Today, more than 81 percent of America’s businesses with 50 or more staff members have some form of Employer Wellness Program with the most popular being exercise, tobaccos cessation classes, back care programs, and stress management. The majority of corporations offer Employee Health Promotion Programs simply because they think the benefit is worth the cost. Yet business leaders continue to ask themselves how to control huge annual increases in health insurance premiums and health care costs.
For many organizations, health costs can consume half of organization profits or more. Some employer’s look to cost sharing, cost shifting, managed care plans, risk rating, and cash-based rebates or rewards. But these methods merely shift costs. Only Employee Health Promotion Programs stand out as the long-term answer for keeping staff members well in the first place.
Employee Health Promotion Programs are an example of health care reform that works. Results from America’s finest organizations, summarized here, are reason enough to consider offering Employee Health Promotion Programs. This investment in your most important asset – your staff members – can have a positive impact on your bottom-line.
Employer Wellness Program Statistics:
Providence Everett Medical Center, a member of the Wellness Councils of America, in Everett, Washington, saved an estimated 3 million or a cost-benefit ratio of 1 to 3.8 over 9 years of an outcomes-based Employee Health Promotion Program. By offering financial rewards ($250 – $325) to staff members who meet specific organizational and staff member health initiatives the Employer Wellness Program continues to meet cost containment expectations in the area of health care use, sick time, injuries, while improving health habits and self-care practices.
During the first 4 years of the Employer Wellness Program there was a 28 percent average reduction in health care utilization compared to nine other Providence hospitals that were used as a control group.
Du Pont saw that each dollar invested in their Employer Wellness Program yielded $1.42 over two years in lower absenteeism costs at Du Pont Co. (Well workplace Gold in Delaware). Absences from illness unrelated to the job among 45,000 blue-collar employees dropped 14 percent at 41 industrial sites where the Employer Wellness Program was offered, compared with a 5.8 percent decline at 19 sites where it was not.
The Travelers Corporation claims a $3.40 return for each dollar invested Employee Health Promotion Programs, yielding total organization savings of $146 million in benefits costs. Sick leave was decreased 19 percent during the four-year research study. In addition to improving the overall health of 36,000 staff members and retirees by lowering poor health habits and increasing good ones, The Travelers realized cost savings by decreasing the number of unnecessary visits to a doctor and emergency rooms. In a similar but smaller research study, members of a Travelers fitness center Employer Wellness Program were absent from work significantly fewer days than non-members.
The Employer Wellness Program at Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Company, based in Las Vegas, cost $76.24 per staff member during the two years it has been in operation. Over half of the 1,600 staff members participated in the Employee Health Promotion Program. Participants significantly lowered cholesterol levels, blood pressure, and weight and experienced 21 percent lower lifestyle-related claim costs than non-participant. Resulting savings: $127.89 per participant in the Employer Wellness Program with a benefit to cost ratio of 1.68 to 1.
Superior Coffee and Foods, a Bensenville, Illinois-based subsidiary of Sara Lee Corporation, attributes impressive results to the success of the corporation’s comprehensive Employee Health Promotion Program. Superior showed 22 percent fewer admissions to a hospital, 29 percent shorter hospital stays, and 42 percent lower expenses per admission when comparing costs for this division’s 1,200 staff members with costs for other divisions. Long-term disability costs were down by 40 percent.
With health costs per staff member at $6,000, nearly twice the national average, Union Pacific Railroad introduced their Employer Wellness Program to its 28,000 staff members, mostly union and blue collar, in 19 Western and Southern states. Beginning with a modest health self-care initiative at an annual cost of $50 per person, the Employer Wellness Program achieved a net savings of $1.26 million. In addition, a voluntary Employer Wellness Program to help staff members reduce health risks projected a cost-benefit ratio of 1 to 1.57 after one year. Workers in a treatment group reduceed their risk of high blood pressure (45 percent) and high cholesterol (34 percent); others moved out of the at-risk range for weight problems (30 percent); and 21 percent stopped using tobacco.
Average health costs of high-risk Steelcase staff members- those whose lifestyles include two to four health risks such as smoking, little exercise, overweight- are 75 percent higher than those of low-risk staff members. But high-risk staff members at this Grand Rapids, Michigan-furniture manufacturing corporation who improved their health habits through the company’s Employer Wellness Program and became low risk cut their average health claims in half thus lowering their health insurance costs by an average of $618 per year. If all high-risk staff members (20 percent of the total staff member population) in one location changed their lifestyles to become low risk, the projected savings could total $20 million over three years.
Workers at Berk-Tec, a small manufacturing corporation in Lancaster County Pennsylvania, learned self-care techniques and reduceed their corporation’s health care costs in one year. By using a self-care guide, the 938 staff members and their family members made smart health decisions and saved $21.67 per employee and dependent a nearly 18 percent reduction in costs. By combining reductions in doctor visits and emergency room use, the corporation saved $39.06 per employee a 24.3 percent decrease in costs over the previous year.
A health claims-based research study of 72,000 people insured through 285 Wisconsin school districts found a lower demand for health services among those with access to Employee Health Promotion Programs and self-care programs. Reductions in health services results in savings for the Wisconsin Education Insurance Group of as much as $4.75 for each $1 spent, higher savings were found in the group receiving access to a 24-hour phone-based nurse advice line, a self-care reference book, and health education materials.
CIGNA’s Healthy Babies prenatal Employer Wellness Program delivered an average savings of $5,000 per birth by offering expectant mothers with educational materials and rewarding early and regular prenatal care. And 80 percent of participants had normal births without complications compared with 50 percent for non-participant.
With savings estimated to be as high as $8 million, the California Public Workers’ Retirement System sent its 55,000 retirees a health risk appraisal followed, in some cases, with individualized reports and letters and self-care materials to encourage change and help reduce health risks among retirees and at the same time reduce the health care claim costs. In another research study, Bank of America retirees in California who chose the full Employer Wellness Program and demand reduction program showed a decrease in total direct and indirect costs of 11 percent compared with an increase of 6.3 percent for those who completed only a simple health questionnaire.
With lower health care claims, health costs decreased 16 percent for staff members in the City of Mesa (Arizona) who participated in the comprehensive Employee Health Promotion Program. The city realized a return of $3.60 for each dollar invested in the wellnss program for the city staff members.
To prevent back injuries among its staff members, a county in California targeted white- and blue-collar employees, offered classes and fitness training. As a result, there was a significant rise in staff member morale, decreased worker’s comp claims, health costs and sick days related to back injuries producing a net cost-benefit ratio of 1 to 1.79.
Employee Health Promotion Programs: Results
Employee Health Promotion Programs provide Long-Term Results
Employee Health Promotion Programs, according to an article in Crain’s Detroit Business, come in two choices: Employee Health Promotion Programs or Medical Insurance products that aim to lower costs if healthy habits are followed. Both options are a good choice, but only one will really provide long-term medical benefits for your staff members and lower costs over the years.
Employee Health Promotion Programs provide Assistance
Insurance-based products provide staff members the opportunity, according to the article by Jay Green, to save money on their premiums if they follow certain steps, including performing an internet-based health assessment, visiting their physician, and agree to adopt a healthy lifestyle. These plans usually involve one coach call to the staff member during the first 90 days. We wonder if these brief wellness encounters will actually change a person’s lifestyle.
It is the overall change in a person’s lifestyle, as well as disease prevention that will lead to lower health costs in the future.
Employee Health Promotion Programs provide convenient Health Risk Assessments and health screening for things like diabetes, cholesterol and blood pressure. As the article states, these have initial start-up costs, but the savings accrue over time and staff members are more likely to stay active in an onsite staff member Health Promotion Program.
Employee Health Promotion Programs Get Results
Finally, the article states that companies with an effective Employer Wellness Program can expect to see “500 percent lower absenteeism, 400 percent fewer disability claims, and 350 percent lower health care costs.” These are numbers that are very hard to argue with.