I’m a
physician and I’m against wellness. Let
me explain.
Wellness
is the new health mantra that has much more to do with marketing than with evidence-based
medicine. Wellness institutions and
practitioners are omnipresent promising benefits that are often untested or
rejected scientifically. Hospitals that
years ago would have shunned new age healing arts, now offer yoga, meditation,
Reiki and massotherapy. Do they do so
because they have had a Damascus Road experience and now believe that these
techniques are effective? Guess again.
Paul's Conversion on the Damascus Road
Wellness
is no longer restricted to medical campuses, costly weekend retreats for
emotional and physical catharses and ubiquitous yoga storefronts. Wellness is now championed by corporate
America. Business leaders argue that
keeping employees well is not only a demonstration of good corporate
citizenship, but is also good business.
Healthy employees, they claim, will reduce health care costs. I agree, but not for the reasons they offer.
Their
premise that wellness program participants will use fewer medical resources sounds
rational, but it may not be true, despite claims from human resource
professionals who want to justify these programs. Here’s the argument. “If we lower employees’ blood pressure, bring
their weight down and control their diabetes better, than these folks will
avoid heart attacks, strokes and surgeries which will save mega bucks and improve
productivity.”
Sure
it sounds right, but is it really true?
Shouldn’t corporations that know the cost of every widget be able to
prove that this strategy is sound? Last year, a major study on obesity published in the prestigious
Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that overweight individuals
live longer. My point? Just because something sounds like it should
be true, doesn’t make it so.
Many
companies are now coercing employees with financial rewards and penalties
depending upon their success and enthusiasm in participating in company
wellness programs. If you don’t make their
health grade, then the employee will lose serious cash, which may be far in
excess of actual medical costs incurred.
In other words, an unstated motivating factor here may be simply to get
employees pay more health care costs.
Indeed,
two studies published last year in Health Affairs, a peer-reviewed
journal, strongly suggested that corporate wellness programs save company money
simply by cost-shifting to employees. Is
this what is meant by corporate ‘wellness’.
The
Plain Dealer (PD), Ohio's major newspaper reported last year that CVS Caremark is requiring
employees to participate in its wellness program by May 1st or they
will have to fork over $600 more for health care next year. Do we really know that non-participants would
drain the company’s coffers? Realize
that many employees change jobs every few years, and that adverse health
effects of being obese or having elevated blood pressure may take decades to develop. A CVS worker
with a pair of love handles or modest hypertension, isn’t likely to consume
more medical resources in the short term.
Yet, he would be docked on day 1 next year. Does this policy pass the fair and reasonable
test?
The PD
article quotes CVS as claiming that their policy is “the most effective way to
encourage our colleagues to take control of their own health…” This statement breaks the needle on the
hypocrisy meter. The gall that CVS wants
to serve as a health guardian, or should I say health police, while it sells
cigarettes, alcohol, junk food and the sugary beverages that New York City
Mayor Michael Bloomberg has outlawed for health reasons. This is chutzpah of the first order. The court properly pushed back against Mayor Mike.
Sometime after the PD article broke, CVS announced that they would refrain from selling tobacco products. What brought on this revelation? Did they suddenly release that cigarettes were hazardous and might conflict with their healing mission? Was it a marketing maneuver to rebrand the company? While the outcome might be welcome, what was the motivation here.
If a
company truly believes that wellness is right for workers and business, then
create a corporate culture that encourages this and provide leadership. If it’s really as good an idea as they say,
then folks over time will be persuaded to do join in. Leave the financial rewards and penalties
off the field.
I’m
not a wellness antagonist. I support
any activity that is safe and makes people feel better. But making folks pay-to-play in the wellness
game, doesn’t make me feel good.
Perhaps, I need to meditate more on this.
First published in Crain's Cleveland Business, May 2013.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWellness USED to be pretty popular, until they called it Nursing and strangled it for profit. "Integrated Wellness Management" was the original concept of nursing, but it meant something back when nursing meant something other than slave labor.
ReplyDeleteHello!
ReplyDeleteI have a quick question for you, could you email me when you have a chance? Thanks! –Heather
heather(dot)vonstjames@gmail(dot)com
Thanks for this post. The State of Maryland is getting ready to implement a mandatory "wellness program" for state employees, effective January 1, 2015. Under the new program, employees could be on the hook for as much as $425 (for now, probably due to rise) in a single year for not complying with the program. That seems invasive and unfair, to say the least. Details on the program are here. Will I magically become healthier by being forced to see my doctor once a year and complete some mandatory "healthy activities?" No. What I'll most likely do is lie to my doctor or work with him to keep anything potentially negative off the state forms, so I can avoid as much hassle and expense as possible. In addition I'll be forced to use sick leave (costing the state productivity and money) for unnecessary appointments each year just to meet the requirements. I'm very interested to read the two studies you mention about the actual cost benefits of such programs.
ReplyDelete