5 rules for engaging millennials in wellness
As wellness programs become increasingly popular, it is important to understand how to get your employees engaged. Dr. Rajiv Kumar lends 6 tips to engaging millennials in your wellness program in the article below.
Original Post from BenefitsPro.com on June 27, 2016
These days, you can’t pick up a newspaper or turn on the TV without hearing a new indictment of millennials.
You know the stereotype: this newest generation of employees is selfish, narcissistic, entitled, and impatient.
I understand where this portrayal comes from — no one admires the guy with the selfie stick — but it’s an inaccurate generalization of my generation.
In fact, a growing body of data has revealed that the millennial generation is more altruistic, socially engaged, and health-minded than our predecessors, making us perfect consumers for employee well-being programs.
The trick is to speak the language of millennials, and as a millennial myself, I’ve got some advice to share.
Here are my five rules for engaging millennial employees in employee well-being programs.
Rule 1: Be legit.
The key to earning the trust of millennial employees is authenticity. Mine is a generation that has grown up with the internet, and thus has a very keen eye for public relations spin, marketing jargon, and advertising. Millennials have grown up truly surrounded by marketing, and they’re a bit immune.
Research has shown authenticity is of utmost value to millennials. 70 percent of millennials will stay loyal to a brand that has earned their trust. And 75 percent view themselves as authentic, meaning that being legit is the truest way to earn that trust.
When you’re considering your well-being benefits, create a brand that resonates and accurately represents your workforce. Use images of real people instead of photo-shopped models. Offer programs that allow people to set their own goals, rather than impose parameters and benchmarks.
Avoid jargon and long detailed benefits explanations. Instead, be straightforward. You’ll telegraph authenticity and your employees will connect with your brand.
Rule 2: Cut to the chase.
The millennial preference for all things direct and convenient is unsurprising given our obsession with authenticity. A marketplace devoid of middle men, where consumers are empowered to make their own informed decisions, is a millennial touchstone. Some of the country’s most impressive consumer companies have tapped into this preference. Consider Uber, Roku, and Airbnb.
The attributes that define the millennial marketplace — speed, convenience, transparency — are the ones that will also shape the future of well-being benefits.
45 percent of millennials say they’re more likely to participate in health and wellness programs if they’re easy or convenient to do. This means that we need to make enrolling in well-being programs straightforward and easy if we’re going to attract the next generation.
Seek out vendors that offer Single Sign On (SSO) integrations to relieve your employees of additional accounts, usernames, and passwords. When possible, offer programs that are flexible — that employees can tackle in their own time, on their own schedule.
This flexibility means programs can easily be accommodated and adopted within an existing or preferred schedule, and your engagement rates will climb.
Rule 3: There’s gotta be an app for that.
An appropriate motto for the millennial generation is “all mobile, all the time.” It may astonish older generations to hear that even a PC is passé to a millennial. Instead, we rely on our phones, tablets, and even our watches for all of the information we need.
Wellness and benefits cannot expect to be an exception to this rule. To remain relevant to millennials, you must allow them to enroll, participate, and access resources from their phone. This is absolutely critical, as millennials have little tolerance for anything else.
The good news is the industry is catching up to these preferences. Many well-being vendors have native apps that employees can download and access through their phones and smartwatches.
When selecting your wellbeing program, find a vendor that is committed to mobile innovation — this trend is advancing rapidly, and you’re going to want a partner that keeps up with the swift pace of mobile invention.
Rule 4: Sharing is caring.
For a generation that is constantly in touch, frequently checking in online, and publicly voicing our opinions, sharing is an important part of millennial life — professional and otherwise. Contrary to the stereotypes, this tendency to “overshare” isn’t just about self-involvement or grandstanding. In fact, sharing opinions, publicly voicing feedback, and reaching out to others serve an important purpose.
More than any other generational cohort, millennials rely on our friends, family, and peers for recommendations and suggestions. This is particularly true in the consumer arena — consider sites like Yelp and Amazon — but it has important implications for well-being benefits as well.
If you’re able to get an enthusiastic group of early adopters to enroll in your benefits program, you’ll likely enjoy a successful ripple effect with millennials. That’s because word-of-mouth is the most effective form of marketing for my generation. This ties back directly to our obsession with authenticity — we trust the recommendations and views of our friends and peers more than the promotional efforts of a corporate department.
When you’re implementing a well-being program, devote time and resources to building a champions network that will get the word out, share updates, and encourage others to join.
This will attract hard-to-engage populations and keep them invested throughout the program duration. Find a well-being vendor that has experience creating champion networks and your program will benefit immensely.
Rule 5: Offer well-being, not wellness.
Unlike previous generations who have used traditional milestones to measure success — climbing the corporate ladder, getting married, buying a house — millennials aspire towards balance, in life and in work. In fact, 97 percent of millennials named happiness as a primary interest. It’s nearly unanimous.
This focus on balance extends to the way millennials conceptualize health, which is much more focused on well-being than previous generations. 72 percent of millennials say they exercise once a week or more, and 95 percent say they care deeply about their health.
For wellness benefits to be relevant to millennials they can’t merely focus on the physical realm of health — clearly, millennials are already on that bandwagon.
Instead, they’ll be drawn to a range of programs that address other ways to find balance and achieve happiness. For example, financial wellness is of great interest to a generation that’s shouldering record levels of debt. My generation would also benefit greatly from emotional resiliency programs, since we are incredibly stressed.
To engage millennials in wellness, you have to extend the definition to embrace holistic wellbeing, incorporating programs that address the multiple factors that contribute to work/life balance, including mental, social, and emotional variables. Companies that adopt this millennial view of well-being will be much more successful in attracting, retaining, and engaging the most powerful generation in the workforce today.
Read the full article at: https://www.benefitspro.com/2016/06/27/5-rules-for-engaging-millennials-in-wellness?ref=hp-blogs&page_all=1
Source:
Kumar, R. (2016, June 27). 5 rules for engaging millennials in wellness [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.benefitspro.com/2016/06/27/5-rules-for-engaging-millennials-in-wellness?ref=hp-blogs&page_all=1
Office Chatter: Your Doctor Will See You In This Telemedicine Kiosk
Original Post from KHN.org
By: Phil Galewitz
On the day abdominal pain and nausea struck Jessica Christianson at the office, she discovered how far telemedicine has come.
Rushing to a large kiosk in the lobby of the Palm Beach County School District’s administrative building where she works, Christianson, 29, consulted a nurse practitioner in Miami via two-way video. The nurse examined her remotely, using a stethoscope and other instruments connected to the computer station. Then, she recommended Christianson seek an ultrasound elsewhere to check for a possible liver problem stemming from an intestinal infection.
The cost: $15. She might have paid $50 at an urgent care center.
The ultrasound Christianson got later that day confirmed the nurse practitioner’s diagnosis.
“Without the kiosk I probably would have waited to get care and that could have made things worse,” she said.
Endorsements like Christianson’s demonstrate how technology and positive consumer experiences are lending momentum to telemedicine’s adoption in the workplace.
Less than a decade ago, telemedicine was mainly used by hospitals and clinics for secure doctor-to-doctor consultations. But today, telemedicine has become a more common method for patients to receive routine care at home or wherever they are — often on their cellphones or personal computers.
In the past several years, a growing number of employers have provided insurance coverage for telemedicine services enabling employees to connect with a doctor by phone using both voice and video. One limitation of such phone-based services is physicians cannot always obtain basic vital signs such as blood pressure and heart rate.
That’s where telemedicine kiosks offer an advantage. Hundreds of employers — often supported by their health insurers — now have them installed in the workplaces, according to consultants and two telemedicine companies that make kiosks, American Well and Computerized Screening, Inc.
Employers and insurers see the kiosks as a pathway to delivering quality care, reducing lost productivity due to time spent traveling and waiting for care, and saving money by avoiding costlier visits to emergency rooms and urgent care facilities.
Jet Blue Airways is adding a kiosk later this year for its employees at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York. Other big employers providing kiosks in the workplace include the city of Kansas City, Missouri.
Large health insurers such as Anthem and UnitedHealthcare are promoting telemedicine’s next wave by testing the kiosks at worksites where they have contracts.
Anthem has installed 34 kiosks at 20 employers in the past 18 months. John Jesser, an Anthem vice president, said kiosks are a good option for employers too small or disinclined to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in creating an on-site clinic with doctors and nurses on standby.
“This technology should make it more affordable for employers of many sizes,” Jesser said.
Kiosks are typically used for the same maladies that lead people to see a doctor or seek urgent care — colds, sore throats, upper respiratory problems, earaches and pink eye. Telemedicine doctors or nurse practitioners can email prescriptions to clients’ local pharmacies. Employees often pay either nothing or no more than $15 per session, far less than they would pay with insurance at a doctor’s office, an urgent care clinic or an emergency room.
Despite kiosks’ growing use in telemedicine, it’s unclear whether they will be supplanted as smartphones, personal computers and tablets enable people to access health care anywhere with a Wi-Fi connection or cell service. Some employers already offer kiosk and personal device options, including MBS Textbook Exchange in Columbia, Missouri, which has 1,000 workers.
Workplace kiosks’ appeal is they are quiet, private spaces to seek care. Consumers can get their ailments diagnosed remotely because the kiosks are equipped with familiar doctors’ office instruments such as blood pressure cuffs, thermometers, pulse oximeters and other tools that peer into eyes, ears and mouths. The instrument readings, pictures and sounds are seen and heard immediately by a doctor or nurse practitioner.
“The kiosk gives the doctor more tools to diagnose a wider range of conditions,” Anthem’s Jesser said.
The downside is that the machines cost $15,000 to $60,000 apiece, which may still be too much for some employers.
“Telemedicine kiosks look promising and may still take off, but I don’t see explosive growth,” said Victor Camlek, principal analyst with Frost & Sullivan, a research firm.
Employers’ experiences are mixed.
Officials in Kansas City, Missouri, estimate the kiosk placed in city hall almost a year ago has saved the local government at least $28,000. That’s what Kansas City hasn’t spent because employees and dependents chose the telemedicine option instead of an in-person doctor visit. The city also estimates it has gained hundreds of productive work hours — that’s the time employees saved by not leaving work to see a doctor.
In contrast, fewer than 175 of the 2,000 employees at the Palm Beach County School District headquarters have used the kiosk there in its first year, said Dianne Howard, director of risk management.
Howard remains hopeful: “This is the future of health care.”
The district’s kiosk was supplied at no cost by UnitedHealthcare, as part of a test also involving two other employers in Florida.
Those kiosks connect employees to nurse practitioners at Nicklaus Children’s Hospital in Miami. The hospital employs an attendant at each kiosk location to help workers register and use some of the instruments, such as the stethoscope.
Other telemedicine kiosks, such as those made by America Well, are designed to be totally self-service for employees. They also offer users immediate access to a health care provider. American Well has deployed about 200 kiosks and is in midst of rolling out 500 more, mostly to employers, the company said. It also places kiosks in retail outlets and hospitals.
Telemedicine’s increasing sophistication is winning over some traditional-minded physicians.
The WEA Trust in Madison, Wisconsin, a nonprofit that offers health coverage to public employers, installed a kiosk for the benefit of its 250 workers last fall.
Dr. Tim Bartholow, a family doctor by training and chief medical officer for the trust, said he was cautious about physicians treating patients they haven’t seen in person. After observing employees using it, Bartholow is convinced it can help them get good care.
“I don’t think telemedicine is making a doctor being on site quite agnostic, but it is certainly reducing the premium on being in the same space as the patient,” Bartholow said.
Insurers declare they are moving carefully, too, recognizing that telemedicine has its limits and they must depend on practitioners to tell patients when they have to see a doctor — in person.
“We have to rely on their experience and judgment,” Jesser said.
Health Care Consumerism Is More Than A Benefit Design
Original Post from BeneftisPro.com
By: Steven Auerbach
The shift to health care consumerism is well underway. Trends continue to point to increased financial responsibility for consumers with rising deductibles, increased consumer out-of-pocket responsibilities, and accelerated adoption of consumer-directed health care plans (CDHPs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and other account-based benefit offerings.
According to Mercer, enrollment in CDHPs among large employers nearly doubled in the past three years from 15 percent to 28 percent of covered employees.
Employer adoption of these consumer-directed benefit designs will continue to grow for the foreseeable future, driven by the need for cost control, the impact of health care reform and the looming excise tax. The costs of providing health care continue to rise, surpassing $25,000 for an average family for the first time in 2016 (Milliman Medical Index).
However, the fact that the term “consumer-directed health care (CDH)” has become almost synonymous with CDHPs and HSAs is a bit of a misnomer. In reality, CDH is much more than a benefit design – it is a paradigm shift for how consumers must manage their health care and make health care decisions going forward.
Dimensions of consumer-directed health care
The underlying premise of CDH is that, if given more financial responsibility for health care and empowered to make informed decisions, consumers will make better choices – leading to improved health outcomes and decreased overall health care costs. Implicit in this definition are two equally important dimensions:
- Benefit designs that require increased consumer financial accountability
- Empowerment and engagement to support decision-making
The market has made considerable progress shifting to benefit models that increase consumer financial responsibility, as evidenced by the data above. While new plan designs have been created and successfully implemented, financial accountability is only the beginning— behavior must change too, not just costs. We have only just begun to unlock the second dimension of health care consumerism.
Giving somebody new responsibility without the education, tools and support to manage those responsibilities is like giving a teenager the keys to the car without teaching them to drive.
Unlocking consumer engagement
So where does the health care industry really stand in terms of engaging and empowering consumers to make better choices? The health care industry is still struggling to drive meaningful consumer engagement.
Consumer fluency is low. Alegeus research is clear that consumers still don’t have a good grasp on how the plans work, how to predict and manage out of pocket costs, how to determine coverage, etc. Engagement overall is low. The average consumer interacts with their health plan just one or two times per year – and more than 40 percent of members have never taken the time to log-on, dial-in, subscribe, or download any content from their benefit providers.
And in many cases, consumers are resistant to change. When asked whether they wanted to take a more active role in managing their health care, 50 percent said no thanks.
Employers are now spending nearly $700 per employee on various employee engagement programs related to health care, per Fidelity. There are more tools and resources than ever before. Yet most of these programs are delivered with a “one-size-fits-all” approach, and the consumer experience is still very fragmented.
However, by its very nature, CDH may be the key to unlocking consumer engagement. CDHP members are significantly more engaged than their counterparts in traditional coverage for one very important reason…
People pay attention to their money
According to our research, people enrolled in CDHPs scored universally higher on all measures of engagement. CDHP members:
- Are considerably more fluent in the details of health care coverage, costs and billing
- Are more value-conscious - 50 percent more likely to research and compare costs for health care purchases
- Interact more frequently– the average CDHP member interacts with their account 10-50 times per year
- Leverage available resources & channels - one-third more likely to consume content and engage with their benefit service providers through available channels
- Are more likely to participate - twice as likely to participate in employer engagement and wellness programs
Although CDHP members interact more frequently, the key to true engagement and behavior change is not just driving more interactions, it is driving strategic engagement that is targeted, timely and relevant.
Health & wealth must converge
The path to true, meaningful engagement in health care may lie in the convergence of these financial components with the traditional health care domain. No matter what age, health status, or consumer segment, the responsibility for managing finances and costs will become universal.
The convergence of claims, financial transactions and other behavioral and demographic data will provide a robust foundation for targeted engagement.
The fact that consumers pay closer attention to their finances presents a unique opportunity to tap into a captive audience with personalized offers, messages and value-added tools designed to improve engagement, influence behavior and enhance decision-making.
For the vision of consumer-directed health care to be fully realized, it is imperative that employers and benefit providers do not overlook the critical importance of education and targeted engagement to empower better decision making – and better outcomes for all stakeholders.
5 Crucial Wellness Strategies for Self-Funded Companies
Originally posted on CareATC.com
Instead of paying pricy premiums to insurers, self-insured companies pay claims filed by employees and health care providers directly and assume most of the financial risk of providing health benefits to employees. To mitigate significant losses, self-funded companies often sign up for a special “stop loss” insurance, hedging against very large or unexpected claims. The result? A stronger position to stabilize health care costs in the long-term. No wonder self-funded plans are on the rise with nearly 81% of employees at large companies covered.
Despite the rise in self-insured companies, employers are uncertain as to whether they’ll even be able to afford coverage in the long-term given ACA regulations. Now more than ever, employers (self-insured or not) must understand that wellness is a business strategy. High-performing companies are able to manage costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving workforce health.
Here are five wellness strategies for self-insured companies:
Strategy 1: Focus on Disease Management Programs
Corporate wellness offerings generally consist of two types of programs: lifestyle management and disease management. The first focuses on employees with health risks, like smoking or obesity, and supports them in reducing those risks to ultimately prevent the development of chronic conditions. Disease management programs, on the other hand, are designed to help employees who already have chronic disease, encouraging them to take better care of themselves through increased access to low-cost generic prescriptions or closing communication gaps in care through periodic visits to providers who leverage electronic medical records.
According to a 2012 Rand Corporation study, both program types collectively reduced the employer’s average health care costs by about $30 per member per month (PMPM) with disease management responsible for 87% of those savings. You read that right – 87%! Looking deeper into the study, employees participating in the disease management program generated savings of $136 PMPM, driven in large part by a nearly 30% reduction in hospital admissions. Additionally, only 13% of employees participated in the disease management program, compared with 87% for the lifestyle management program. In other words, higher participation in lifestyle management programs marginally contributes to overall short-term savings; ROI was $3.80 for disease management but only $0.50 for lifestyle management for every dollar invested.
This isn’t to say that lifestyle management isn’t a worthy cause – employers still benefit from its long-term savings, reduced absenteeism, and improved retention rates – but it cannot be ignored that short-term ROI is markedly achieved through a robust disease management program.
Strategy 2: Beef Up Value-Based Benefits
Value-Based Benefit Design (VBD) strategies focus on key facets of the health care continuum, including prevention and chronic disease management. Often paired with wellness programs, VBD strategies aim to maximize opportunities for employees make positive changes. The result? Improved employee health and curbed health care costs for both employee and employer. Types of value-based benefits outlined by the National Business Coalition on Health include:
Individual health competency where incentives are presented most often through cash equivalent or premium differential:
- Health Risk Assessment
- Biometric testing
- Wellness programs
Condition management where incentives are presented most often through co-pay/coinsurance differential or cash equivalent:
- Adherence to evidence-based guidelines
- Adherence to chronic medications
- Participation in a disease management program
Provider Guidance
- Utilization of a retail clinic versus an emergency room
- Care through a “center of excellence”
- Tier one high quality physician
There is no silver bullet when it comes to VBD strategies. The first step is to assess your company’s health care utilization and compare it with other benchmarks in your industry or region. The ultimate goal is to provide benefits that meet employee needs and coincide with your company culture.
Strategy 3: Adopt Comprehensive Biometric Screenings
Think Health Risk Assessments (HRAs) and Biometric Screenings are one and the same? Think again. While HRAs include self-reported questions about medical history, health status, and lifestyle, biometric screenings measure objective risk factors, such as body weight, cholesterol, blood pressure, stress, and nutrition. This means that by adopting a comprehensive annual biometric screening, employees can review results with their physician, create an action plan, and see their personal progress year after year. For employers, being able to determine potentially catastrophic claims and quantitatively assess employee health on an aggregate level is gold. With such valuable metrics, its no surprise that nearly 51% of large companies offer biometric screenings to their employees.
Strategy 4: Open or Join an Employer-Sponsored Clinic
Despite a moderate health care cost trend of 4.1% after ACA changes in 2013, costs continue to rise above the rate of inflation, amplifying concerns about the long-term ability for employers to provide health care benefits. In spite of this climate, there are still high-performing companies managing costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving health. One key tactic? Offer at least one onsite health service to your population.
I know what you’re thinking: employer-sponsored clinics are expensive and only make sense for large companies, right? Not anymore. There are a few innovative models out there tailored to small and mid-size businesses that are self-funded, including multi-employer, multi-site sponsored clinics. Typically a large company anchors the clinic and smaller employers can join or a group of small employers can launch their very own clinic. There are a number of advantages to employer-sponsored clinics and it is worthwhile to explore if this strategy is right for your company.
Strategy 5: Leverage Mobile Technology
With thousands health and wellness apps currently available through iOS and Android, consumers are presented with an array of digital tools to achieve personal goals. So how can self-insured companies possibly leverage this range of mobile technology? From health gamification and digital health coaching, to wearables and apps, employers are inundated with a wealth of digital means that delivering a variation of virtually the same thing: measurable data. A few start-ups, including JIFF and SocialWellth, have entered the field to help employers evaluate and streamline digital wellness offerings.
These companies curate available consumer health and wellness technology to empower employers by simplifying the process of selecting and managing various app and device partners, and even connecting with tools employees are already be using.
Conclusion:
Self-insured companies have a vested interest in improving employee health and understand that wellness is indeed a business strategy. High-performing companies are able to manage costs by implementing the most effective tactics for improving workforce health including an increased focus on Chronic Disease Management programs; strengthening value-based benefit design; adopting comprehensive biometric screening; exploring the option of opening or joining an employer-sponsored clinic; and leveraging mobile technology.
Which strategies or tactics are you considering to implement in 2017?
Employers Advised to Re-Evaluate Retirement Plan Costs
Original post benefitnews.com
Even with fee disclosure rules in place, it is hard for plan sponsors to discern the fairness of the fee structures in their retirement plans.
The TIAA Institute has taken issue with the fairness of per capita administrative service fees. In a recent report, the Institute says that plan sponsors need to look harder at the fee structures of their plans because what may seem fair might actually be penalizing the lowest paid or shortest term workers.
“When people started charging per head fees, people claimed it was fair. It doesn’t meet an economic standard of fairness. It is simple and transparent but definitely not fair,” says David Richardson, senior economist with the TIAA Institute and author of a recent research paper on assessing fee fairness.
It is up to plan sponsors to “do that classical weighing of efficiency vs. fairness and what it means. A per head fee is transparent but it is not a fair thing to do. … These per head fees are a clever way to charge expensive fees to younger, shorter tenure workers. I find it worrisome,” he says.
This has always been an issue but all of the fees were wrapped up in an all-inclusive fee that paid for investment, administrative and other services. Once the government began requiring an unbundling of fees, “we started seeing all of these things,” he says.
Historically, fees were charged on a percentage of assets basis, which was fair, he says.
He uses Social Security as an example of why a per-head fee is not equitable. Currently, Social Security charges administrative costs as a percentage of income taken in. If it decided to charge all 325 million people in the Social Security Administration system a flat $50 fee, “every man, woman and child, firm or disabled, would be charged the same because we are providing that service,” Richardson says. “I don’t think anybody would consider that to be fair but that is what flat fee advocates are claiming in a retirement plan.”
He doesn’t believe fee issues will go away anytime soon, saying that he believes the overwhelming majority of vendors in the market are honest but many of the regulations are geared to those who may not be.
“So, the government has to be proactive, not reactive on this. The tendency is to say if people have more information, they are better informed. That is not necessarily true,” he says. “A lot of people have a hard time understanding that information. It is tough. When they are saying we need more and more disclosure, more and more information is not just helpful. Sometimes it is just noise to people.”
So when deciding how to assess the effectiveness of a plan administrative fee structure, TIAA Institute says plan sponsors must follow four standards: adequacy, meaning that total fees collected must cover the cost of features and services provided to plan participants; transparency, meaning that everyone can easily find information about the fee structure and how the fees are used to cover the cost of plan features and services; administrative ease, meaning the fee structure is not too complicated or costly for either the plan sponsors or plan vendors; and fairness, which ensures that administrative fee structures must provide horizontal and vertical equity.
Horizontal equity means that “participants with similar levels of assets pay similar levels of fees”; and vertical equity means that “participants with higher levels of assets pay at least the same proportion in fees as those with lower asset balances,” according to TIAA Institute.
The Institute says that an administrative fee structure charging a flat pro rata fee can meet all four standards.
“This fee structure will be transparent, can easily satisfy adequacy, and is simple to administer. The pro rata fee will be fair because similar participants pay the same level of fees and higher asset participants pay the same proportion of fees as low asset participants,” TIAA Institute finds.
“Our goal is to help plan sponsors make the best decision for their plan and their plan participants,” Richardson says.
He also cautions ERISA plans to keep these four standards in mind because not doing so could violate the “spirit of non-discrimination rules,” he adds. “It tilts benefits in favor of key and highly paid employees.”
What Percentage of Your Life Will You Spend Exercising?
Original post benefitspro.com
How much of your life will you spend exercising?
Reebok and Censuswide, a global consulting firm, studied exercise habits of people in nine different countries and came to the conclusion that the average person spends 0.69 percent of their life working out.
Or, as the shoe company chose to frame it: Of the 25,915 days the average human lives, only 180 will be spent on fitness. “25,915” is the name of Reebok’s new brand campaign focused on encouraging exercise.
To be sure, “fitness” is not the same as physical activity. Manual laborers throughout the world burn calories effectively without ever getting a gym membership. Reebok acknowledges that fact, pointing out that the average person still walks or runs the equivalent of the Earth’s circumference nearly twice in their lifetime.
But in an increasingly mechanized world in which more and more workers spend their days in offices, it is more important than ever for people to make a conscious effort to get exercise.
"As a brand dedicated to promoting and supporting health and fitness around the world, we felt compelled to shine a light on the disparities between what we may aspire to achieve and what we're willing to do about it," said Yan Martin, vice president of brand management at Reebok. "It gives us a renewed urgency to get out there and live fuller, healthier lives. If we all traded in 30 minutes of phone time for a jog, we could actually help change the dynamics of global wellness."
To highlight the point, Reebok calculated that 41 percent of the average person’s life is spent engaging with technology. That amounts to 10,625 days in a lifetime.
In addition, the average person will spend 29.75 percent of his life sitting down, 6.8 percent socializing with a loved one, and 0.45 percent having sex.
Wellness Programs Benefit Employers, Employees
Original post benefitspro.com
Offering employee wellness programs isn’t just an exercise in altruism for employers. It pays off where most companies would value it most: the bottom line.
According to Forbes, companies are jumping on the wellness program bandwagon right and left, to varying degrees. In fact, Society for Human Resource Management statistics indicate that in 2015, 80 percent of employers offered preventive wellness resources and educational information, with 70 percent providing full strategic wellness programs.
But while companies are happy that such programs pay off in healthier employees — 59 percent of employers offering such programs believe they’ve resulted in improved worker health — those programs also pay off in ways that have more to do with the balance sheet than the scales.
The cost of wellness programs is nothing to be sneezed at, but on the other hand, employees involved in them often shift their diets to healthier foods, quit smoking, have a better mental outlook on life, and watch the pounds come off through diet and exercise. That means they’re less likely to have to take so much advantage of company-provided health plans, if they’re reducing or eliminating some of the risk factors that could send them to the doctor more often.
Healthy employees might exercise more and weigh less, but they’re also more engaged, and thus more productive. Better health can also keep them on the job longer, with better results and better job satisfaction. They’re less stressed, miss fewer days at work and don’t look for a new job as often; all those things add up to an 8 percent improvement in productivity.
All of that can translate, for most programs, to dollars and cents: a return on investment of approximately 3:1. It can, however, go as high as 6:1, thanks to reduced health care costs that result when workers are eating better, exercising more, and forestalling some of the conditions that can result in mega health care bills — and equally mega premiums.
Americans Don't Do Much to Avoid Hearing Loss
Original post benefitspro.com
Have you ever even heard of healthy hearing habits?
If not, you’re probably not alone. Relatively few Americans appear to pay much attention to their ears, according to a recent survey conducted by Wakefield Research on behalf of EPIC Hearing Healthcare.
The survey found that only a quarter of U.S. adults have had their hearing checked in the past two years.
In contrast, nearly two-thirds of Americans make a trip to the dentist at least annually. Three-quarters wear some type of corrective lens — either glasses or contact lenses — to address poor eyesight.
The survey also revealed that very few understand the risks to hearing presented by a number of different conditions and behaviors, including diabetes (22 percent) and smoking (14 percent).
Granted, it’s hard to believe that evidence showing how smoking harms hearing would be the game-changer that gets people to quit their habit, considering that people are more than aware of the other substantial health risks linked to tobacco use.
But overall hearing health would likely improve if the topic was more often emphasized by physicians and other health experts. According to EPIC, only 8 percent of employer-based wellness programs include hearing health.
But according to EPIC, only one in five people who would benefit from hearing aids actually have them. Even worse, people who don’t discuss hearing issues with their doctors often do not adopt habits to prevent hearing loss.
Hearing loss is often a problem that snowballs, explains EPIC. Dr. William Luxford, medical director of House Clinic. He says that people who begin to lose their hearing engage in behavior that exacerbates the problem, such as turning up the volume on their TV.
“A lot of people aren’t aware how important preventive care is for their hearing health,” he says. “Regular, comprehensive hearing exams by an audiologist are the best way to establish a baseline for your hearing and ensure any hearing loss is caught early so further damage can be prevented or minimized and hearing can be improved as quickly as possible.”
Study Suggests Plan Transparency Doesn’t Reduce Costs
Original post benefitspro.com
“Transparency” and “choice” are keywords associated with health plan consumers these days. But there’s no guarantee those key words will lead to the keyword phrase “lower health plan costs.”
One survey of the employees of two large employers reports that, given transparency and choice, plan members did not reduce their costs, and even increased them a bit.
As reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a Harvard-led study of plan member choices showed that when employees spent more time reviewing plan options, they did not necessarily choose a cheaper plan. The study compared two groups of employees — one with a plan that included a price transparency/comparison tool, and another that did not.
The end result: The group with the transparency tool at its disposal spent slightly more (about $59 per member) on a plan in 2012 than in 2011. The control group with no tool spent about $18 more.
However, the study included a big caveat: “Only a small percentage of eligible employees” used the tool.
Such studies can offer some value to the overall discussion of reducing health costs. However, this study’s small focus (employees of two companies), when it took place (before comparison tools had truly entered the health plan lexicon), and the relatively few folks who used it, probably suggests that perhaps it could be used as the starting point for a broader study based upon more recent data.
EEOC Issues Final Rules on Employee Wellness Programs
From the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
WASHINGTON, DC--The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) today issued final rules that describe how Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) apply to wellness programs offered by employers that request health information from employees and their spouses. The two rules provide guidance to both employers and employees about how workplace wellness programs can comply with the ADA and GINA consistent with provisions governing wellness programs in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (Affordable Care Act).
The rules permit wellness programs to operate consistent with their stated purpose of improving employee health, while including protections for employees against discrimination. The rules are available in the Federal Register at Regulations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). EEOC also published question-and-answer documents on both rules today, available at Q&A ADA Wellness Final Rule and Q&A GINA Final Rule, and two documents for small businesses Facts on ADA and Wellness and Facts on GINA and Wellness.
Many employers offer workplace wellness programs intended to encourage healthier lifestyles or prevent disease. These programs sometimes use medical questionnaires or health risk assessments and biometric screenings to determine an employee's health risk factors, such as body weight and cholesterol, blood glucose, and blood pressure levels. Some of these programs offer financial and other incentives for employees to participate or to achieve certain health outcomes.
The ADA and GINA generally prohibit employers from obtaining and using information about employees’ own health conditions or about the health conditions of their family members, including spouses. Both laws, however, allow employers to ask health-related questions and conduct medical examinations, such as biometric screenings to determine risk factors, if the employer is providing health or genetic services as part of a voluntary wellness program. Last year, EEOC issued proposed rules that addressed whether offering an incentive for employees or their family members to provide health information as part of a wellness program would render the program involuntary.
The final ADA rule provides that wellness programs that are part of a group health plan and that ask questions about employees’ health or include medical examinations may offer incentives of up to 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage. The final GINA rule provides that the value of the maximum incentive attributable to a spouse’s participation may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of self-only coverage, the same incentive allowed for the employee. No incentives are allowed in exchange for the current or past health status information of employees’ children or in exchange for specified genetic information (such as family medical history or the results of genetic tests) of an employee, an employee’s spouse, and an employee’s children.
The final rules, which will go into effect in 2017, apply to all workplace wellness programs, including those in which employees or their family members may participate without also enrolling in a particular health plan.
“The EEOC received comments on both rules from a broad array of stakeholders and considered them carefully in developing this final rule,” said EEOC Chair Jenny R. Yang. “The Commission worked to harmonize HIPAA’s goal of allowing incentives to encourage participation in wellness programs with ADA and GINA provisions that require that participation in certain types of wellness programs is voluntary. These rules make clear that the ADA and GINA provide important safeguards to employees to protect against discrimination.”
Program Design
Both rules also seek to ensure that wellness programs actually promote good health and are not just used to collect or sell sensitive medical information about employees and family members or to impermissibly shift health insurance costs to them. The ADA and GINA rules require wellness programs to be reasonably designed to promote health and prevent disease.
Protecting Confidentiality
The two rules also make clear that the ADA and GINA provide important protections for safeguarding health information. The ADA and GINA rules state that information from wellness programs may be disclosed to employers only in aggregate terms.
The ADA rule requires that employers give participating employees a notice that tells them what information will be collected as part of the wellness program, with whom it will be shared and for what purpose, the limits on disclosure and the way information will be kept confidential. GINA includes statutory notice and consent provisions for health and genetic services provided to employees and their family members.
Both rules prohibit employers from requiring employees or their family members to agree to the sale, exchange, transfer, or other disclosure of their health information to participate in a wellness program or to receive an incentive.
The interpretive guidance published along with the final ADA rule and the preamble to the GINA final rule identify some best practices for ensuring confidentiality, such as adopting and communicating clear policies, training employees who handle confidential information, encrypting health information, and providing prompt notification of employees and their family members if breaches occur.
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination. Further information about the EEOC is available on its web site at EEOC.gov.