Companies making sure their co-workers are fit and healthy - where do you stand?
We were out with friends recently who were talking about their company's health program that tests their employees’ health and fitness levels and charges their monthly health insurance contributions accordingly. This means the fitter you are, the less you pay every month. The couple work for the same company and the husband thinks the program is great – the wife does not. Both maintain a very healthy lifestyle, exercise regularly and eat well. He thinks some people need a big push to force them into living well and this is one way to do it. She thinks it’s none of the company’s business.
But both joined this ‘voluntary’ program because they pay less than their co-workers who smoke, are over-weight or generally unhealthy. I use quotation marks around the word ‘voluntary’ because one might question how voluntary it is, when you are punished financially if you don’t take part.
The truth is that unhealthy employees cost their employers more money that their fitter counterpart. They take more sick days, are less productive and have higher health care costs. However, it’s also true that smoking is not illegal and if someone wants to have a soda pop and fast food meal for lunch every day, that’s their right.
CNN did a recent story on something similar – a company in Nebraska adopted a program 16 years ago to encouraging it’s employees to adopt healthier lifestyles.
“Lincoln Industries has three full-time employees devoted to "wellness," and offers on-site massages and pre-shift stretching.
Most unusual of all: The company requires all employees to undergo quarterly checkups measuring weight, body fat and flexibility. It also conducts annual blood, vision and hearing tests.
"When you get the encouragement from somebody to help you with nutrition and to help with a more active lifestyle, it makes it easier to be able to attain a lifestyle that most people want to attain anyway," says Hank Orme, president of Lincoln Industries.
The company ranks workers on their fitness, from platinum, gold and silver down to "non-medal." To achieve platinum, they must reach fitness goals and be nonsmokers and the company offers smoking cessation classes.
For employees, reaching platinum means a three-day, company-paid trip each summer to climb a 14,000-foot peak in Colorado. This year, 103 qualified, the most ever. And 70 made the climb.
For the company, the payoff is significantly lower health-care costs. The company pays less than $4,000 per employee, about half the regional average and a savings of more than $2 million. That makes the $400,000 Lincoln Industries spends each year on wellness a bargain. Watch Dr. Sanjay Gupta on wellness at work »
"The return on investment is extraordinary," Orme says.
The investment in "wellness" pays other dividends, according to Orme. He says fitter workers are more productive, have better morale and are safer. As evidence, he points to worker's compensation claims. Ongoing safety training and an increasingly fit workforce have pushed worker's comp costs down from $500,000 five years ago to less than $10,000 so far this year.
Seven years ago, shift leader Howard Tegtmeier was in the non-medal category. The 49-year-old smoked, drank, was overweight and took 12 pills a day to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol and diabetes.
"I just made the decision it was time to change my life, and the wellness program showed me ways to do that," Tegtmeier says.
Tegtmeier says he no longer smokes or drinks. His weight is down from 230 to 180, thanks to diet and exercise. His cholesterol and blood pressure are also down, and he says he no longer needs medication.
Tonya Vyhlidal, Wellness and Life Enhancement director, says Lincoln Industries doesn't pressure workers who don't want to participate. But sooner or later, she says, the company's "culture" attracts most employees to live healthier lives.
The company sponsors races, helps with gym memberships or exercise equipment, offers healthy choices in the vending machines and hosts classes on health and nutrition."
Source - http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/diet.fitness/07/25/fn.healthy.company/ind...
Tell Us
Do you participate in a program like this? Would you? Do you think companies have the right to charge unfit and unhealthy people more for company health insurance? Would a program like this at your work encourage you to become healthier?
Comments
Normally, it's not in my nature to let governments, companies or large entities make decisions for individuals or shoehorn them into any type of behavior.
It's a matter of personal freedom, after all.
But, going against my nature, I do like programs like these and here's why. I have a friend who I've known since college and to her own admission, has always been overweight. She tried several times to shed those extra pounds, but never succeeded. Besides, her focus had always been on academic and professional achievement and being highly intellectual, she always found judgment of women's bodies, looks, etc., on the superficial side.
Once she became a doctor, though, that thought process was upended. And it wasn't any thing she discovered through study or experience, but what her insurance company was willing or not willing to cover. Because of her weight, she found out she was at an extremely high risk for diabetes and that she may not qualify for coverage or at worst, pay an extremely high premium. And for my friend, who respects numbers and science, this threat hit home.
And with two toddlers at home and a husband still attending school, she was the one who would need to provide health insurance coverage for her entire family.
Needless to say, less than a year later, she lost more than 50 pounds and changed her wardrobe, hair and attitude right along with it. I've seen the benefits of these types of programs first hand, and if an individual can't muster the motivation to take his or her health into their own hands, maybe the threat of losing out on something extremely valuable can.
Community and public health and safety are interesting issues, as many of our state and governmental laws may seem to "take away" our individual rights to make our own health and safety decisions, and have given those rights over to the larger community: for the greater good. For instance, there are numerous health-related laws that once were considered personally intrusive, but that (most of us) no longer question: seat belt mandates, anti-driving while intoxicated laws, required and recommended vaccinations for entering public schools...the list can go on. In fact, isn't smoking in the car with children present banned in some states? What about cell phone use in cars?
What does this have to do with a company health & fitness program?
Along the lines of the "greater good" of the community's health (or organization's health), it makes sense to have institutionalized health and wellness programs in place. Just like a health law or policy, this company health program can provide its community with a program that acts like a metaphorical umbrella: it is more for protecting the overall community, rather than every single individual. And, unlike laws with fees, fines or other consequences for non-compliance, this "voluntary" program is, well, voluntary! (And, as a side note, many laws and policies do have "opt out" choices for individuals...we still do have individual decisions to make!) Unlike laws, if you follow then to the "T", you receive no "thanks" or "free gift", but with the company health and fitness program...there comes great benefits and rewards and incentives for participating! (or, is it not just for participating, but for "beating" others in a health/fitness contest? I digress...)
I may have read the information too quickly, but my biggest concern (if I were an employee at this company) would be that my information be kept confidential, and that other employees could not find out about my health status. There may be some healthy competition, but there is a fine line between motivating each other vs. putting others down for non-compliance or choosing not to participate. What about individuals with disabilities or health conditions that they want/need to keep private, and that prevent from participating in the "health and fitness" programs? Are they then "outcasts" of the system for not participating for some "unknown reason"? I'd like more reassurance that this would not be the case.
Lastly, an unfortunate side effect of institutionalizing a "health and fitness" program is that groups polarize from each other in extreme opposite ways, and we can see remnants of high school days emerge: classes of people become the "jocks", the "smokers", the "beauty queens", the "couch potatoes"...
Post new comment