Employee Health Programs an Employee

Employee Health Programs

An Employee Grievance

Employee benefits issues: How employee health interventions can decrease costs

Employee benefits issues: How employee health interventions can decrease costs

One of the most striking aspects of the 'Googleplex,' the famous site where the Google Company headquarters are located, is the extent to which physical fitness is part of the employee workday. Free fitness and yoga classes, as well as access to an on-site gym, are some of the most notable perks offered by Google to its employees, along with generous healthcare packages and other benefits. There is also an on-site doctor for employees, to ensure that any minor sneezes and sniffles are quickly contained (the Google Culture, 2010, Google). But while Google promotes its services as part of the amenities it offers to its employees, many workplaces have taken an even more aggressive role in promoting positive and healthy lifestyle. Healthy employees, managers rationalize, are sick less often, take fewer days off, and also are less costly for the employee healthcare system in the long-term.

One of the most controversial employee health interventions involves hiring decisions. "More hospitals and medical businesses in many states are adopting strict policies that make smoking a reason to turn away job applicants, saying they want to increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living" (Sulzberger 2011: 1). Hospitals in Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas, have officially stopped hiring smokers and treat nicotine like an illegal narcotic. They argue that living a healthy lifestyle is part of the requirements of healthcare employment: to set a good example for patients; to lower patient's exposure to nicotine; and to reduce overall healthcare costs for financially-strapped healthcare organizations. Some companies even test regularly test new and current employees' urine for nicotine, while others merely rely upon an 'honor system.' Existing employees are told that they must quit smoking, or will lose their jobs (Sulzberger 2011: 1).

Critics of the smoker ban have used a slippery slope argument, stating that if employers are allowed to intervene in the lives of employees in this manner, then they will begin to mandate other health-promotion efforts, such as requiring employees to lose weight. However, some workplaces have already enacted weight loss campaigns with a slightly different approach. "Many employers are now paying workers to lose weight, adhere to an exercise plan, and take their medications exactly as prescribed. The theory is that these bonuses will pay for themselves by reducing the costly complications of chronic diseases" (Capretta et al. 2010). More than 40% of U.S. companies currently have obesity-reduction programs, some of which are purely voluntary, others of which are not (Obesity, 2008, Consumer Affairs). And more than half of large companies in the U.S. "offer financial incentives to employees who complete smoking cessation or weight management programs" (Capretta et al. 2010).

The success of such financial incentive programs was corroborated by a New England Journal of Medicine report "that found that paying patients $750 significantly increased their chances of quitting smoking. And in a Journal of the American Medical Association study in 2008, cash rewards made patients more likely to lose weight" (Capretta et al. 2010). Of course, one obvious question is if the numbers back up such claims about the benefits of obesity reduction strategies, financially, for companies. Even if these programs may personally benefit workers in the long run, the argument is that such tactics are unethical and do not yield substantial cost savings for employers.

But research indicates that "obesity is associated with a 36-percent increase in spending on healthcare services, more than smoking or problem drinking" (Obesity, 2008, Consumer Affairs). And "estimates of ROI for wellness programs range from zero to $5 per $1 invested," depending on the program (Obesity, 2008, Consumer Affairs). Cash bonuses seem to be the most effective incentive, in the short-term more so than intangible reward programs, where employees are merely verbally praised for their efforts. Some strategists argue that, calculated ROI aside, all programs "may give companies an edge in recruiting and retaining desirable employees" (Obesity, 2008, Consumer Affairs). Employees that wish to work in healthy environments are likely to be more motivated, and workers who are encouraged to be healthy will enjoy their work more, and become more productive.

"Some say it may be more effective just to award employees cash and prizes for weight loss rather than devote resources to long-term wellness programs" (Obesity, 2008, Consumer Affairs). However, this would seem to unjustly penalize poorer workers, as workers with "limited economic means may not have the ability to pay for gym memberships, smoking cessation drugs, or more nutritious food. Indeed, data from several studies confirm that those in lower socioeconomic classes have poorer smoking cessation rates and diets with less whole grains, lean meats and fresh fruits and vegetables" (Mhurchu 2010). Less affluent workers are less likely to work for companies like Google that provide amenities like on-site gyms or even gym memberships. Ironically, workers who are most in need of better food and exercise programs are the least likely to receive them as part of their employee benefits packages.

Critics of pure 'pay-for-weight loss' or smoking cessation programs strategies stress the need for employers to provide the tools to make weight loss possible. Penalizing and rewarding workers with carrots and sticks to not make finding safe places to exercise easier or healthy food more accessible is discriminatory and does not encourage long-term lifestyle changes and cost savings. That is why the Google system of free gyms, fitness classes, health assessments, and free, healthy lunches is so valuable. Even the fact that Google allows workers to commute through company-provided transportation reduces the stresses of commute time, which can be linked to excess weight gain and a lack of exercise because of the time that is lost in transit. (it also enables workers to use their laptops to work during commuting time). And Google's generous health insurance packages also encourage workers to go frequently to doctors who are likely to alert employees if weight gain and smoking-related complaints are of concern.